ISAAC BROWN LAWSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Three defendants were charged with carrying a concealed weapon (misdemeanor) but the state amended the information mid-trial to charge carrying a concealed firearm (felony). The court reversed the convictions, holding that substantive amendments increasing the offense level require refiling the information and new arraignment, and found insufficient evidence of possession as to one defendant.
The amendment was error because it substantially altered the offense and possible penalty after the parties announced ready; substantive amendments must be refiled with new arraignment. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions of Lawson and Beasley but insufficient as to Canady, who had no evidence of knowledge or possession of the firearms.
[1] An amendment to an information that substantially alters the offense and possible penalty requires the information to be re-filed with a new arraignment.
[2] A defendant cannot be compelled to proceed to trial immediately after an amendment to the information that substantially alters the offense and possible penalty.
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 impact of the amendment was to substantially alter the offense and possible penalty to which the defendants were being subjected in the trial court. The amendment being one of substance, the information should have been re-filed with a new arraignment for the defendants”
Establishes that substantive amendments increasing offense level require refiling and new arraignment, not mid-trial amendment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree defendants were stopped for a traffic violation. The officer observed the driver (Lawson) place something under the front seat, and another defe…
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
The appellants were originally informed against for the crime of carrying a concealed weapon. This would be a violation of § 790.01(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. [a misdemeanor], They pleaded not guilty and waived jury trial. After the trial proceedings had commenced,1 the State moved to amend the information over objection of defense counsel, by changing “weapon” to “firearm”, which would be a violation of § 790.01(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. [a felony]. The court permitted the amendment; the cause proceeded; the appellants were convicted and given the maximum sentence provided for in § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat., F.S. A. This appeal ensued.
The appellants have preserved for review the alleged error in the permitting of the amendment, raising the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the three convictions.
We find merit in the error alleged in permitting the amendment after the parties had announced ready, because the impact of the amendment was to substantially alter the offense and possible penalty to which the defendants were being subjected in the trial court. The amendment being one of substance, the information should have been re-filed with a new arraignment for the defendants, etc. See: Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Fekany v. State, 111 Fla. 598, 149 So. 590; State ex rel. Wentworth v. Coleman, 121 Fla. 13, 163 So. 316; Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So.2d 661; compare Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 811.
Therefore, we find that the trial judge committed error in permitting the amendment and requiring the defendants to go forward immediately with the trial,
As to the sufficiency of the evidence, reviewing the record and the reasonable inferences therefrom it appears that at the time the vehicle in which the three defendants were riding was stopped [as a result of an alleged violation of a traffic regulation] the apprehending officer saw the driver [Lawson] place something under the front seat and subsequently other officers who arrived at the scene saw Beasley [who was in the back seat] bend over and place something at his feet. Subsequent search of the vehicle disclosed a concealed firearm under the driver’s seat and also in the back seat in a pillow case at the feet of Beasley. We find this was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions as to these two appellants, but find insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant, Canady, who was a passenger on the right side in the front seat, and there was no evidence that he knew that either firearm was in the vehicle or that he had possession or control of the automobile. See: Stephens v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 361.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the judgment of conviction as to the appellant, Canady, be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to discharge him from the cause; and as to the remaining appellants, Lawson and Beasley, the judgments of convictions and sentences here under review be and the same are hereby reversed and set aside because of the error found in permitting the amendment of the information, and these appellants are remanded to the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Elton E. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981)…a firearm in a closed automobile glove compartment was not concealed within the meaning of chapter 790. The Third District has held that a firearm underneath a defendant’s automobile seat and totally obscure from view was concealed. Lawson v. State, 251 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The Second District, on the other hand, held that a revolver out of view under the defendant’s front seat but holstered with a leather strap snapped over the hammer, was concealed under section 790.01(2) but was excepted by secti…
-
Gibson v. State, 721 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…icking in cocaine); cf. Turner v. State, 376 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (amendment of information, which changed charge from misdemeanor to felony offense, was change of substance and prejudiced defendant’s right to fair trial); Lawson v. State, 251 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (reversing conviction because information substantially amended after trial proceedings commenced). Mr. Gibson tries to equate the repositioning of attorneys in the public defender’s office to a circumstance in which there is a s…
-
State v. Butler, 325 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…is easy reach,’ ” it is our conclusion that the decided cases in this state clearly hold that such a gun is concealed on or about the person for the purposes of the statute. See Watson v. Stone, Fla.1941, 4 So. 2d 700; Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 683; State v. Hanigan, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 785. Accordingly, the order dismissing the information is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded. . Attorney General…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Alvaro Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1946)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. ADA A. Tressler, 157 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1946)
- Fekany v. State, 111 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)
- Augustus Johnson, Jr. v. State, 190 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- State v. Coleman, 121 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1935)
- Stephens v. State, 226 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- United States v. Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank, 226 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)