Lackos v. State, 48898
| Decision Date | 04 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48898,48898 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 217 |
| Parties | Lewis Joseph LACKOS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, and Judge C. Luckey, Jr., Public Defender, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This case is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioner Lackos was convicted of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. In the information the owner of the property was specified to be Remington Electric Razors, Incorporated. During the State's case, the local manager of the company from which the electric razors had been stolen testified that the correct corporate name of the firm at the time of the theft was Remington Electric Shavers, a Division of Sperry Rand Corporation. At this point, the State moved to amend its information to include the correct corporate name. After objection, the court offered to continue the trial for as long as reasonably necessary for the petitioner to seek to obtain evidence indicating that he would be prejudiced by the amendment. Petitioner's counsel asserted that the question of prejudice was immaterial and declined the offer of continuance. Thereupon, the State was permitted to amend, and the petitioner was subsequently convicted.
In an opinion reported at 326 So.2d 220, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the action taken by the trial court. Because of conflict in decision with Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So.2d 661 (1946), and Sipos v. State, 90 So.2d 113 (Fla.1956), we issued our order allowing certiorari and dispensing with oral argument. After studying the briefs submitted by the parties, we have concluded that the District Court of Appeal reached the proper result in the instant case.
In Alvarez, supra, the information charged the defendant with breaking and entering a building owned by Harold McGucken with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. At trial it was determined that the building was actually owned by McGucken Liquor Stores, Inc., a corporation. Over the defendant's objection, the court permitted the State to amend its information by striking out the name of the alleged owner and inserting in lieu thereof the appropriate name. This decision was found to be reversible error in a Supreme Court opinion which indicated that when an information is amended in a matter of substance, it should be re-signed by the prosecutor, re-sworn to by him, and re-filed with the clerk. The Court further held that the defendant should be re-arraigned should re-plead, and that the jury should be re-selected and re-sworn upon new issues joined. Alverez was followed in Sipos v. State, supra, wherein it was held that a trial court erred in permitting an information charging burglary of a building owned by Sterchi Brothers, Inc., a corporation, to be amended to read Sterchi Brothers Stores, Inc., a corporation.
Rule 3.140(o), Fla.R.Cr.P., first adopted in 1967, governs the resolution of this issue. That rule reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...So.2d 147, 149 (Fla.1982); Hall v. State, 420 So.2d 872, 874 (Fla.1982); Hoffman v. State, 397 So.2d 288, 290 (Fla.1981); Lackos v. State, 339 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1976). The criminal discovery rules were never intended to furnish a defendant with a procedural device to delay litigation or e......
-
Smith v. State
...an appropriate instance to encourage liberal amendment of imprecise allegations as long as the defendant is not prejudiced. Lackos v. State , 339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976). The indictment completely failed to allege venue; in this it was fundamentally defective and void. We affirm the holding in......
-
Sanders v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...and the Court is bound by that decision.10 See id; see also State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla. 1989) (citing Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1976)) ("[T]he state may substantively amend an information during trial,even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a......
-
Van Sanders v. Sec'y, CASE NO. 8:15-cv-2821-T-02CPT
...and the Court is bound by that decision.9 See id; see also State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla. 1989) (citing Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1976)) ("[T]he state may substantively amend an information during trial,even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a ......