WAKEENE RASHON BLANCHE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant's misdemeanor battery conviction was reversed because the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the information to add the charge after the statute of limitations had expired.
A trial court errs in allowing amendment of an information to add a misdemeanor battery charge when the statute of limitations has run on that charge.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to amend an information to add a charge after the applicable statute of limitations has expired.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested for burglary and battery occurring on December 27, 1997. The State filed an information on January 16, 1998 containing only the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amendment Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Wakeene Rashon Blanche, was convicted of burglary, a first degree felony punishable by life,1 and misdemeanor battery2 for an altercation at the apartment of a former girlfriend. The crimes occurred on December 27, 1997, and he was arrested shortly thereafter. The State filed the information on January 16, 1998, but it contained only the burglary charge relevant to the events of December 27, 1997.3 On the morning of trial, January 21, 1999, over two years after the commission of the crimes, Mr. Blanche’s arrest, and the filing of the information, the trial court allowed the State to amend the information to add the misdemeanor battery charge. The jury found the appellant guilty of both crimes. Mr. Blanche now contends that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment because the statute of limitations had run on the misdemeanor battery, as well as the time for speedy trial. See § 775.15(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(a); Goldman v. State, 645 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The State properly concedes the error and we reverse with directions to vacate Mr. Blanche’s misdemeanor battery conviction.'
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PATTERSON, C.J., and CAMPBELL and CASANUEYA, JJ., Concur. . § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
. § 784.03(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).
.An unrelated charge was also originally contained in this information but it was severed before trial and the appellant eventually pleaded to it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TUR v. State, 797 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…at probation. Harris, 773 So. 2d at 629. See also United States v. Foster, 904 F. 2d 20 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Sultani, 704 F. 2d 132, 134 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. White, 529 F. 2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir. 1976); Blankenbaker v. State, 744 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Indeed, Tur correctly points out that sentencing after a probation revocation is merely a “deferred sentencing proceeding.” See Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla.1985). Pursuant to section 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1999), u…
-
Laknerick Harris v. State, 773 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…Although the charges against petitioner did not qualify for this waiver, we conclude that the court must have been relying on this section in announcing that the jury trial was waived, and no imprisonment would be ordered. In Blankenbaker v. State, 744 So. 2d 573, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the second district held that pursuant to section 918.0157 “once a county court has ordered that a defendant will not be incarcerated and denied that defendant a jury trial based on that commitment, it may not later impose i…
Authorities Cited
- Goldman v. State, 645 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)