Howard v. State

The trial court, at trial, allowed the state to amend the information to change the number of a statute referenced in the information as having been violated. Appellant argued that this was error because it increased his potential sentence. We affirm.

The information charged appellant with unlawfully committing

an assault upon Michael Antinick, a duly qualified and legally authorized enforcement officer of the Hallandale Police Department, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun, while Michael Antinick was in the lawful performance of…