Blanche v. State, 744 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Blanche v. State, 744 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Robert Innis Barrett v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2025-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert Innis Barrett v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Defense counsel waived jury immediately before the trial convened, and both the challenged disposition and sentence were consistent with the stated parameters of section 918.0157, Florida Statutes.2 As to Barrett’s further concern, “once a county court has ordered that a defendant will not be incarcerated and denied that defendant a jury trial based on that commitment, it may not later impose incarceration for a violation of probation.” Blankenbaker v. State, 744 So. 2d 573, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see also Harris v. State, 773 So. 2d 627 , 629– 1 Given the nature of the charge, Barret…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
In Blankenbaker v. State, 744 So.2d 573, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the second district held that pursuant to section 918.0157 "once a county court has ordered that a defendant will not be incarcerated and denied that defendant a jury trial based on that commitment, it may not later impose incarceration for a violation of probation." The court concluded that while section 948.06(1), allows a trial court to "impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation," the "order of non-imprisonment" eliminated incarceration as a penalty for t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wakeene Rashon BLANCHE
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 99-00550.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov 10, 1999.
744 So. 2d 573
Judith Ellis, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.
Campbell, Casanueya, Patterson.
Published
PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Wakeene Rashon Blanche, was convicted of burglary, a first degree felony punishable by life,[1] and misdemeanor battery[2] for an altercation at the apartment of a former girlfriend. The crimes occurred on December 27, 1997, and he was arrested shortly thereafter. The State filed the information on January 16, 1998, but it contained only the burglary charge relevant to the events of December 27, 1997.[3] On the morning of trial, January 21, 1999, over two years after the commission of the crimes, Mr. Blanche’s arrest, and the filing of the information, the trial court allowed the State to amend the information to add the misdemeanor battery charge. The jury found the appellant guilty of both crimes. Mr. Blanche now contends that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment because the statute of limitations had run on the misdemeanor battery, as well as the time for speedy trial. See § 775.15(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(a); Goldman v. State, 645 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The State properly concedes the error and we reverse with directions to vacate Mr. Blanche’s misdemeanor battery conviction.'

Reversed and remanded with directions.

PATTERSON, C.J., and CAMPBELL and CASANUEYA, JJ., Concur.
1

§ 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).

2

§ 784.03(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).

3

An unrelated charge was also originally contained in this information but it was severed before trial and the appellant eventually pleaded to it.