Katz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Katz v. State

736 So. 2d 734, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7908, 1999 WL 393672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1820

StatusPublished

This text of 736 So. 2d 734 (Katz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katz v. State, 736 So. 2d 734, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7908, 1999 WL 393672 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Scott William Katz was charged with aggravated child abuse in an information filed January 4, 1999. On March 16,1999, the state filed a sworn amended information that corrected the initials it used to refer to the child victim. Katz moved to dismiss the amendment on the ground that the state had failed to seek leave to amend pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(j). The motion was denied and a date was set for arraignment on the amended information. Before arraignment, Katz filed a petition in this court seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding on the amended information.

The state was not required to seek leave of court because rule 3.140(j) does not apply when a new amended information is filed. See State v. Stell, 407 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Nor did the filing of the amendment deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction. See State v. Calle, 560 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1990). Since the trial court’s jurisdiction continues during the period between the filing of the amendment and the arraignment on the amendment, we deny Katz’s petition for writ of prohibition.

WARNER, DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Scott William Katz was charged with aggravated child abuse in an information filed January 4, 1999. On March 16,1999, the state filed a sworn amended information that corrected the initials it used to refer to the child victim. Katz moved to dismiss the amendment on the ground that the state had failed to seek leave to amend pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(j). The motion was denied and a date was set for arraignment on the amended information. Before arraignment, Katz filed a petition in this court seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding on the amended information.

The state was not required to seek leave of court because rule 3.140(j) does not apply when a new amended information is filed. See State v. Stell, 407 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Nor did the filing of the amendment deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction. See State v. Calle, 560 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1990). Since the trial court’s jurisdiction continues during the period between the filing of the amendment and the arraignment on the amendment, we deny Katz’s petition for writ of prohibition.

WARNER, DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 So. 2d 734, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7908, 1999 WL 393672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack