118 So. 3d 305
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Conroy was arrested on February 24, 2008, and the initial information charged Shooting or Throwing a Deadly Missile (Count One) and Criminal Mischief (Count Two).
- In May 2008, the State amended to Criminal Mischief (Count One) and Attempted First Degree Murder (Count Two) with multiple victims listed for Count Two.
- In May 2009, a second amended Information charged two counts of Attempted First Degree Murder (each naming a different victim) and two counts of Aggravated Assault with a Firearm (each naming a different victim), plus Shooting Missile.
- After multiple continuances, the speedy-trial demand was filed February 22, 2011; trial dates were reset, and the State filed a third amended information on April 25, 2011, the day trial was scheduled.
- Conroy filed a notice of expiration on April 25, 2011, but the fifty-day speedy-trial period had expired on April 13, 2011; the court dismissed Counts One, Two, Four, and Five and retained Count Three, leading to an appeal by the State.
- The trial court ultimately held the third amended information violated Rule 3.191(o) and prejudiced Conroy; the court dismissed several counts but did not handle all counts consistently, prompting remand to reinstate the second amended information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of counts was proper under speedy trial rules | State argues amended info after speedy time violated Rule 3.191(o). | Conroy contends amendment after expiry caused prejudice and improper charges. | Prejudice established; dismissal affirmed only as to some counts; remanded to reinstate prior information. |
| Whether the third amended information added new and different charges in violation of Rule 3.191(o) | State asserts amendments did not violate the rule since speedy period had not expired. | Conroy argues the amendments created new charges on the day of trial after expiry of speedy time. | Amendment after expiry violated Rule 3.191(o); prejudice found. |
| Whether the trial court correctly determined prejudice from the amendment | State contends prejudice was not shown beyond the mere addition of charges. | Conroy shows prejudice due to new charges and altered exposure affecting preparation. | Court credited prejudice from new counts added on the day of trial. |
| What is the appropriate remedy for the error—dismissal vs. reinstatement | State asks to dismiss the amended counts and uphold the trial court’s order. | Conroy seeks reinstatement of the second amended information or selective dismissal to cure prejudice. | Remand to reinstate the second amended information; not all counts were properly dismissed. |
| Whether the State could be required to elect among counts or reinstate prior information | State contends consolidation or reinstatement would prejudice proceedings. | Conroy argues that a precise cure by elimination or reinstatement preserves position pre-amendment. | Court held that reinstatement or selective election is proper to avoid prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nelson, 26 So.3d 570 (Fla.2010) (de novo standard for speedy-trial dismissal review)
- Pezzo v. State, 903 So.2d 960 (Fla.1st DCA 2005) (amendment to add new charges after speedy period violates Rule 3.191(o))
- Whitehall v. State, 81 So.3d 599 (Fla.2d DCA 2012) (reinstatement of prior information where amendment prejudicial)
- State v. Clifton, 905 So.2d 172 (Fla.5th DCA 2005) (prejudice from amending information after speedy-trial period)
- Dell'Orfano, 651 So.2d 1213 (Fla.4th DCA 1995) (separate offenses generally may not be pleaded in one count)
- Lackos v. State, 339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976) (cures for defects in amendments and prejudice concerns)
- García v. State, 692 So.2d 984 (Fla.3d DCA 1997) (amendment on day of trial to correct errors; limited prejudice)
- Geiger v. State, 532 So.2d 1298 (Fla.2d DCA 1988) (permitted reinstatement when necessary to preserve positions)
- Stell v. State, 407 So.2d 642 (Fla.4th DCA 1981) (nolle prosequi effects and amendments considerations)
- Belton v. State, 468 So.2d 495 (Fla.5th DCA 1985) (nolle prosequi and amendment interplay)
- Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So.2d 598 (Fla.2006) (de novo review framework for speedy-trial issues)