Background
A jury found Marcellus Matro Bowles guilty of misdemeanor trespass and resisting without violence in Orange County Court. He appealed the resulting judgment and sentence.
Bowles argued that the trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal because the evidence placed the offense two days later than the date alleged in the information. He also challenged $273 in imposed costs through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, which was deemed denied when the trial court did not rule within sixty days.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed the denial of Bowles’s motion for judgment of acquittal. A two-day variance between the charged and proven offense dates did not warrant acquittal because time ordinarily is not a substantive part of an information, and Bowles did not seek a statement of particulars, object to the date evidence, or show surprise or impairment of his defense.
The court reversed in part as to costs. The record sufficiently identified the $50 assessed as costs of prosecution, but it did not reveal the statutory or other basis for the remaining $223 labeled only as “Court Costs.”
The court remanded for entry of a corrected order identifying the bases for all imposed costs. Bowles need not be present for that ministerial correction.
Key Takeaways
- A minor date variance does not invalidate a conviction absent prejudice to the defense.
- The record must make the basis for imposed criminal costs evident for appellate review.
- Unspecified court costs may be corrected on remand without the defendant’s presence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a harmless charging-date variance from a sentencing-record defect. It preserves Bowles’s convictions while requiring a transparent record supporting each assessed cost.