THOMAS BLAKE, 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.
Thomas Blake appeals his convictions for leaving the scene of an accident (felony) and driving with a suspended license (misdemeanor). The court affirms the convictions and sentences but reverses the restitution order and remands for correction of sentencing errors including jail credit and misdemeanor designation.
The felony conviction is affirmed as the amended information added no new allegations and caused no prejudice. The restitution order is reversed because the state failed to demonstrate sufficient connection between driving without a license and the accident damages. The case is remanded for the trial court to award jail credit, correct the misdemeanor designation, but the plea designation error is not correctable as it does not affect sentencing and is not fundamental.
[1] An amendment to an information after the close of evidence does not warrant relief if no new allegations are added and the defendant is not prejudiced.
[2] Restitution may not be awarded on a misdemeanor offense when the state fails to demonstrate a connection between the offense and the damages incurred.
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“Because the amendment added no new allegations to the information, Appellant was not prejudiced and is not entitled to relief.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing post-evidence amendments to charging documents; no prejudice when no new allegations added.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlake pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor charge of driving with a suspended or revoked license and was found guilty of the felony of leaving 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 Prejudice From Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellant seeks review of his convictions and sentences for leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury, a felony, and driving with a suspended or revoked license, a misdemeanor. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but reverse the order of restitution. We remand for the trial court to vacate the order of restitution, and instruct the trial court to award jail credit and to correct one typographical error in the sentencing documents.
Appellant pled nolo to the misdemeanor and was found guilty of the felony at trial; the trial court sentenced Appellant to incarceration and ordered restitution on the misdemeanor. The judgment erroneously indicates that Appellant pled to both offenses and incorrectly designates the misdemeanor as driving under the influence of alcohol. Appellant appealed, and also filed a motion to correct sentencing error, as authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), alleging that he was entitled to jail credit and that the sentencing documents incorrectly designate his misdemeanor offense.
Appellant argues that his felony conviction should be reversed because the state amended the information after the close of evidence. Because the amendment added no new allegations to the information, Appellant was not prejudiced and is not entitled to relief. See State v. Erickson, 852 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), citing State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla.1989). Appellant also argues that no restitution should have been awarded on his misdemeanor. We agree because the state did not sufficiently demonstrate a connection between Appellant’s driving without a license and the accident that caused the damages. See Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.2002).
The state correctly concedes that Appellant is entitled to remand for a determination of jail credit, and that Appellant is entitled to correction of the judgment to reflect Appellant’s correct misdemeanor offense. These claims clearly have merit, as the record shows that Appellant pled to driving with a suspended or revoked license and that an order on jail credit would be issued by the trial court.
We deny Appellant’s request to correct the sentencing documents that incorrectly state he pled to both the misdemeanor and felony charges, because the error does not affect the sentence, it is not fundamental, and Appellant is not entitled to relief. See generally Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla.2000).
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s convictions, reverse the restitution order, and remand with instructions for entry of an order pertaining to jail credit ahd correcting Appellant’s misdemeanor designation to that of driving with a suspended or revoked license.
KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clifton, 905 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…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 amendment added no new allegations to the information, Appellant was not pr…
-
Lopez-Vasquez v. State, 966 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…tten notation on the scoresheet. We agree with the public defender that appellant is entitled to an amended judgment or order reflecting that he has been adjudicated guilty of two rather than three felonies in the instant case. See Blake v. State, 873 So. 2d 1259, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Appellant is entitled to correction of the judgment to reflect Appellant’s correct misdemeanor offense.”); Poole v. State, 777 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (defendant “correctly insists that he is entitled to an…
-
State v. Clifton, 895 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…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 amendment added no new allegations to the information, Appellant was not pr…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1989)
- Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2002)
- Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Bowman v. State, 852 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Charles v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)