Lawson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--189,71--189 |
| Citation | 251 So.2d 683 |
| Parties | Isaac Brown LAWSON et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., BARKDULL, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ensor v. State
...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 w......
-
Ingleton v. State, 96-187
...349 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), disapproved on other grounds, Tingley v. State, 549 So.2d 649 (Fla.1989); Lawson v. State, 251 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). An alteration to a grand jury's indictment by the state or the court is permissible, however, if it does not relate to t......
-
Gibson v. State, 97-03477.
...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 Mr. Gibson tries to equate the reposi......
-
Hernandez v. State, s. 81-2506
...3d DCA 1981); Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Melero v. State, 306 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lawson v. State, 251 So.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981); see Damon v. State, 397 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA ...