DAVID GLASSERMAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by not granting the appellant a continuance after amending the information on the day of trial.
The appellant was charged with failure to return a rented vehicle, with the date of the alleged crime amended shortly before trial. This amendment sig…
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 Preparation Of Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Glasserman appeals his conviction and sentence for failure to return a rented vehicle. We reverse.
Appellant was prepared to defend the charges by showing that on November 24, 1988 he had the car with the permission of the rental company and that in December of 1988 he paid for the extended use. Immediately before jury selection, the trial judge granted the state’s motion to amend the information. The date of crime was changed from “on or about November 24, 1988” to “on or about January 5, 1989.” Events that took place in January of 1989 greatly affected appellant’s prepared defenses.
An information serves the important function of placing the accused on notice and giving him or her an opportunity to adequately prepare a defense. Johnson v. State, 190 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1967).
Because the state asked for the amendment only after defense counsel delivered discovery material on the day of trial, we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted the amendment. However, once the trial judge allowed the amendment, we hold that appellant should have been granted his requested continuance. The one day postponement of opening statements to allow appellant to depose a state’s witness, under the circumstances of this case, did not allow appellant adequate time to prepare a defense to the amended information.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jamell Demons, 351 So. 3d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…le for a notice requirement in criminal cases is to apprise the defendant of the charges and potential punishments against him, such as the death penalty, and afford the defendant an opportunity to adequately prepare a defense. Glasserman v. State, 590 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Clearly, in the present case, the defendant was noticed and apprised of the state seeking the death penalty in 2019. The defendant has had nearly three years to start the preparation of his defense to the state seeking the…
-
Lonzo Taylor v. State, 958 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…fact that the property involved in the two charges may have been the same property “does not mean that the charges themselves arose out of the same transaction.” Id. Similarly, this court reversed and remanded for new trial in Glasserman v. State, 590 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), where the defendant was prepared to defend against charges for a crime on a certain date. The trial court permitted the state to amend the information, expanding the timeframe for the crime charged immediately before jury se…
Authorities Cited
- Augustus Johnson, Jr. v. State, 190 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Nicholls v. Nicholls, 196 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1967)
- Denmark v. State, 196 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1967)