from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, Judge; L.T. Case No. 163349
Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.
Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for
Remand from the Supreme Court of Florida
review this case upon remand from the Supreme Court of
Florida following its decision in Born-Suniaga v.
State, 256 So.3d 783 (Fla. 2018). Because the supreme
court changed the law on speedy trial in
Born-Suniaga, and we have for review an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, we again affirm.
driving, the defendant hit a pedestrian crossing the street.
He left the scene in a panic, but later called the police to
report the accident. The police issued a notice to appear and
did not arrest the defendant.
to the notice, the defendant appeared in court in December
2015, but no hearing took place. In March 2016, the State
filed an information under seal charging the defendant with
leaving the scene of a crash resulting in injury. The
clerk's office issued, but the State did not serve, a
capias for the defendant's arrest.
November 2016, defense counsel filed a notice of appearance
and a notice of expiration of time for speedy trial. The
trial court heard the speedy trial issue two days later and
set the trial six days after that, within the ten-day
the defendant appeared for trial, the trial court immediately
granted an ore tenus motion to unseal the information.
Defense counsel informed the court that there was a defect in
the information because it listed the incorrect statute
number for the crime charged. The cited subsection defined
"serious bodily injury," rather than the crime of
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily
argued that if the State amended the information to fix the
error, his client would be entitled to an additional 24 hours
before having to enter a plea. That additional time would
take the case outside the recapture period and entitle him to
a discharge. Nevertheless, the State orally amended the
information. It argued that Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.140(m), which entitles the defendant to 24 hours
before entering a plea, applies only if the information is so
vague as to mislead the accused.
defendant responded that the amended information was a
substantial change that prejudiced his defense because it
changed the charge from a third to a second-degree felony,
resulting in different punishment levels. He explained that
he believed the State was proceeding under the theory that
the accident resulted in a serious bodily injury, rather than
a "leaving the scene" theory. Prior to entering a
plea on the amended information, the defendant requested 24
hours under Rule 3.140(m).
trial court concluded that the amended information merely
corrected a scrivener's error. It was not substantive,
did not prejudice the defendant, and did not require the
extra 24 hours under Rule 3.140(m). The court announced the
trial would begin at 1:30 that afternoon.
defendant accepted the court's offer of two years'
probation, entered a plea of no contest, and reserved his
right to appeal. The court withheld adjudication and placed
the defendant ...