ROBERT INNIS BARRETT
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 omission of a pre-trial announcement that the court would not adjudicate or incarcerate does not rise to fundamental error when defense counsel waives jury trial and the final disposition is consistent with § 918.0157.
[1] A trial court's failure to announce before trial that it will not adjudicate or incarcerate a defendant does not constitute fundamental error in dispensing with jury tria…
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 intelligence“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 incarceration for a violation of probation.”
Court's statement of the protective rule established in Blankenbaker v. State regarding the limits on sentencing after a § 918.0157 waiver.
Robert Innis Barrett was found guilty of driving with a suspended license, a second-degree misdemeanor, after a nonjury trial in Miami-Dade County Cou…
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 Second-Degree Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0860 Lower Tribunal No. AEY3HXE ________________
Robert Innis Barrett, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcus Bach Armas, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J.
2 Appellant, Robert Innis Barrett, challenges a withhold of adjudication and an order of probation rendered after he was found guilty of driving with a suspended license, a second-degree misdemeanor, at the conclusion of a nonjury trial. See §§ 322.34(2), 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024). On appeal, he contends that the trial court fundamentally erred in dispensing with his statutory right to jury trial without first announcing it would not adjudicate or incarcerate him upon conviction.1 See § 918.0157, Fla. Stat. Under the unique circumstances presented here, we hold that the omission does not rise to the level of fundamental error. Defense counsel waived jury immediately before the trial convened, and both the challenged disposition and sentence were consistent with the stated parameters of section 918.0157, Florida Statutes.2 As to Barrett’s further concern, “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 incarceration for a violation of probation.” Blankenbaker v. State, 744 So. 2d 573, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see also Harris v. State, 773 So. 2d 627, 629–
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Upton, 658 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1995)
- Huskins v. State, 773 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)