Robert Innis Barrett v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0860
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0860 Lower Tribunal No. AEY3HXE ________________

Robert Innis Barrett, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcus Bach Armas, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Robert Innis Barrett, challenges a withhold of adjudication

and an order of probation rendered after he was found guilty of driving with

a suspended license, a second-degree misdemeanor, at the conclusion of a

nonjury trial. See §§ 322.34(2), 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024). On appeal,

he contends that the trial court fundamentally erred in dispensing with his

statutory right to jury trial without first announcing it would not adjudicate or

incarcerate him upon conviction. 1 See § 918.0157, Fla. Stat. Under the

unique circumstances presented here, we hold that the omission does not

rise to the level of fundamental error. 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, Barrett had no constitutional right to jury trial. 2 The limited record does not contain a colloquy, a written waiver, or any findings bearing on the waiver. See State v. Upton, 658 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla. 1995) (holding that the trial court must ensure any waiver of the right to jury trial is made “knowingly, voluntarily[,] and intelligently”).

2 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reiterating that once the court relies on section

918.0157 to dispense with a jury trial, it may not later impose a term of

incarceration for a probation violation). Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.