BARRY SANDERS, 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.
Barry Sanders was convicted of burglary. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the charging information at the end of its case-in-chief to allege the crime occurred at either of two addresses rather than the single address originally charged. The court affirmed, finding no prejudice to Sanders' substantial rights.
The trial court did not err in allowing the amendment. The state may substantively amend an information during trial, even over the defendant's objection, unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. No such prejudice was shown here.
[1] A criminal information may be amended during trial, even over the defendant's objection, absent a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant.
[2] A defect in an indictment or information does not warrant dismissal or a new trial unless it is so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused in preparin…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state may substantively amend information during trial, even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant”
Establishes the legal standard for permissible amendments to charging documents during trial, citing State v. Anderson.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarry Sanders was charged with burglary at 7427 Pine Island Road, Clermont, Florida. During trial, the victim testified she lived at 7527 Pine Island …
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.
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
Barry Sander’s only argument in this appeal is that his conviction for burglary cannot stand because the trial court permitted the state, at the end of its case in chief, to amend its information to allege that the crime took place at either 7427 or 7527 Pine Island Road, Clermont, Florida, rather than at 7427 Pine Island Road, Clermont, as originally alleged. During trial the victim testified she lived at 7527 while her daughter thought her mother’s address was 7427.
Rule 3.140(o), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides as follows:
(o) Defects and Variances. — No indictment or information, or no count thereof, shall be dismissed or judgment arrested, or new trial granted on account of any defect in the form of the indictment or information or of misjoinder of offenses or for any cause whatsoever, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment or information is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him or her in the preparation of a defense or expose the accused after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
The main concern of this rule of criminal procedure is the problem of an indictment that is “so vague and indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him or her in the preparation of a defense.” We are unable to fathom that appellant would have prepared his defense any differently had the state not had the conflict involving the address of the victim’s residence. The daughter of the victim testified that she was in the victim’s house when she witnessed Sanders’ accomplice in the home. The victim herself testified that she had not given Sanders permission to be on her property. The fact that there was some confusion over the correct address does not diminish the fact that the residence that was found to be burglarized by Sanders was the home of the victim, whether that home was located at 7427 or 7527 Pine Island Road.
The trial court did not err in allowing the state to amend its information. Previously in Huffman v. State, 636 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we deferred to our supreme court’s holding in State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1989). There, the supreme court held, “the state may substantively amend information during trial, even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant.” Id. at 1375. Similarly, in the instant appeal, we find there is no showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of Barry Sanders. The judgment and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clifton, 905 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…is prejudiced thereby. E.g., Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1976); State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla.1989); Rivera v. State, 745 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Garcia, 692 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sanders v. State, 669 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Id. at 291; see also Blake v. State, 873 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Appellant argues that his felony conviction should be reversed because the state amended the information after the close of evidence. Because the…
-
Green v. State, 728 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ant. There are, indeed, a number of cases in which the [*781] courts have found, on the facts of the particular case, that prejudice to the defendant could not have occurred from a mid-trial amendment to the information. See, e.g., Sanders v. State, 669 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (amending the location of a burglary from 7427 Pine Island Roa,d to “7427 or 7527” Pine Island Road could not have affected the manner in which the defendant prepared his defense); Young v. State, 632 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994…
-
State v. Thomas, 714 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…e, 560 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) did not address this issue. Further, we do not here suggest that an amendment to correct a minor error that does not substantively prejudice the defendant will be barred by double jeopardy. See Sanders v. State, 669 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1989)
- Marquenton Huffman v. State, 636 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)