From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jaramillo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 25, 1995
659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

holding that the State can file an amended information on remand after a judgment is reversed so long as the new charge does not violate the defendant's double jeopardy rights

Summary of this case from Harris v. State

Opinion

No. 93-03544.

August 25, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Susan C. Bucklew, J.

Elizabeth L. Hapner, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for appellee.


Efram Jaramillo appeals his three convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After reviewing the record in accordance with our obligation under State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987), we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether Jaramillo's convictions must be reversed because the charging document failed to allege all of the essential elements of aggravated assault with a firearm. The parties filed supplemental briefs, and the state conceded error.

The state filed an amended information charging Jaramillo with three counts of attempted first-degree murder. After a bench trial the court found Jaramillo guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm.

A conviction on a charge not contained in the charging document is a denial of due process. State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1983). The information in this case did not allege the element that the victim had a well-founded fear of imminent violence. That element is essential to support a conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm. State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Because the information failed to allege all of the essential elements of the crime for which he was convicted, Jaramillo's convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm must be reversed. See Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The state cannot retry Jaramillo for attempted first-degree murder; however, the state can file an amended information and proceed against Jaramillo for aggravated assault with a firearm without violating double jeopardy. See Von Deck v. Evander, 622 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.


Summaries of

Jaramillo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 25, 1995
659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

holding that the State can file an amended information on remand after a judgment is reversed so long as the new charge does not violate the defendant's double jeopardy rights

Summary of this case from Harris v. State

holding that conviction on charge not contained in State's information constitutes denial of due process

Summary of this case from State v. Young

In Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which involved the same facts presented in Mr. Velasquez's first appeal, we relied on Von Deck in explaining that, on remand, "[t]he state cannot retry Jaramillo for attempted first-degree murder; however, the state can file an amended information and proceed against Jaramillo for aggravated assault with a firearm without violating double jeopardy."

Summary of this case from State v. Velasquez
Case details for

Jaramillo v. State

Case Details

Full title:EFRAM JARAMILLO, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 25, 1995

Citations

659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

State v. Young

At the end of Officer Kennedy's testimony, the State rested. Defense counsel argued the information was…

State v. Velasquez

Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar a successive prosecution for aggravated assault after an acquittal…