Constructive Amendment of Charging Document

Appellate Counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the State constructively amended the information before trial to allow petitioner to be convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm as opposed to attempted robbery with a firearm and mask (the primary charge) in order to allow the tainted identification of the petitioner to be allowed at trial.

The mask part of the count was removed even though the victim said that the suspect wore a mask and that she could only see the eyes. A constructive amendment of a charging document allows the jury to convict the defendant of an offense different from or in addition to the offenses alleged in the indictment. Stanley v.State, 57 So. 3d 944, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “This is a due process violation which constitutes fundamental error.” Id. at 947 (citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004).

Justice for My Son 2

PO Box 70111

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35407

Facebook pamelok@aol.com

Facebook – Under the Realm of the Wrongly Convicted Group –  Charles Ajoloko Is Innocent. Please like page.

Email – justiceformyson2@aol.com

Twitter – https://twitter.com/justiceforhim2

https://vine.co/Pamela.Ajoloko

Instagram – Pamela Ajoloko

 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s