GENE ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gene Andrews was convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree murder based on conduct occurring in 1975, but was charged by indictment in 1978. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the two-year statute of limitations under the old law had expired before the indictment was filed, and the new four-year statute of limitations did not retroactively apply to the charges.
The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the two-year statute of limitations had run. The new four-year statute of limitations under the Florida Criminal Code applied only prospectively, not to cases pending when the new code became effective, because the legislature did not clearly indicate retroactive application.
[1] The statute of limitations in effect at the time a crime is committed generally controls.
[2] A legislature may extend a criminal statute of limitations without violating ex post facto prohibitions if the extension occurs before prosecution is barred and the legis…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally speaking, the criminal statute of limitations in effect when a crime is committed controls.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the statute of limitations applicable at the time of the crime, not at the time of prosecution, governs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrews was indicted on May 3, 1978, for conspiring between July 15 and September 15, 1975, to commit first degree murder. An information was filed, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Acting Chief Judge.
By indictment filed May 3, 1978, appellant was charged with conspiring, between July 15 and September 15, 1975, to commit first degree murder.1 An information was filed and appellant’s motion to dismiss it, on the ground that the statute of limitations had run, was denied. At the ensuing trial he was found guilty as charged. We reverse the conviction because the statute of limitations had in fact run, and the motion to dismiss the information should have been granted.
Prior to the adoption of the “Florida Criminal Code”, Sections 775.011 et seq., Florida Statutes (Ch. 74-383, Laws of Florida), the periods of limitation for prosecuting criminal actions were set forth in Section 932.465, Florida Statutes. The statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy to commit murder was two years.
Chapter 74-383 was approved by the governor and filed with the Secretary of State on July 3, 1974. Section 67 thereof specified an effective date of July 1, 1975. Section 10 directed the renumbering of Section 932.465 as Section 775.15 and amended it extensively. The statute of limitations for first degree felonies was increased from two to four years.2
On May 23,1975, Chapter 75-24, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1975, was approved and filed, amending Section 67 of Chapter 74.383 to read “October 1, 1975” instead of “July 1,1975.” Thus, the statute of limitations governing the instant crime was not increased until some two weeks after the conspiracy charged in this proceeding had terminated.
Generally speaking, the criminal statute of limitations in effect when a crime is committed controls. State v. Wadsworth, 293 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1974). The legislature can extend the limitations period without violating the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws if it (a) does so before prosecution is barred by the old statute, and (b) clearly indicates that the new statute is to apply to cases pending when it becomes effective. United States v. Richardson, 512 F. 2d 105, 106 (3rd Cir. 1975). Fortunately, we have been spared the task in this particular instance of ascertaining legislative intent from sometimes tenuous indicia. Our supreme court has expressly held that the legislature did not indicate that the new code provisions pertaining to limitations were to apply to cases pending when the code became effective, and that therefore those provisions have prospective application only. Reino v. State, 352 So. 2d 853, 861 (Fla. 1977).
The trial court had no jurisdiction and the purported conviction must be reversed. Akers v. State, 370 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The judgment and sentence are vacated and the case remanded to the court below with instructions to dismiss the information.
DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. . The conspiracy was unsuccessful, but of course that has no bearing on this case.
. Throughout their briefs, the parties assert, without explanation, that the statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy to commit first degree murder is three years under the new code. Our reading of the statutes does not comport with that conclusion. First degree murder is a capital felony. Section 782.-04(1 )(a), Fla. Stat. Conspiracy to commit a capital felony is a first degree felony. Section 777.04(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The statute of limitations on a first degree felony is four years. Section 775.15(2)(a), Fla. Stat. This case, of course, does not hinge on that point.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryson v. State, 42 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ng the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws if it (a) does so before prosecution is barred by the old statute, and (b) clearly indicates that the new statute is to apply to cases pending when it becomes effective.” Andrews v. State, 392 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); see U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F. 2d 105, 106 (3d Cir.1975); see also Scharfschwerdt v. Kanarek, 553 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The crime in this case occurred in April 2005. In 2006, the Legislature added section 775.15(…
-
Scharfschwerdt v. The Honorable Paul A. Kanarek, 553 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…of the constitutional ex post facto prohibition if it (a) does so before prosecution is barred by the old statute, and (b) clearly indicates that the new statute is to apply retroactively to cases pending when it becomes effective. Andrews v. State, 392 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1981); Reino v. State, supra, quoting United States v. Richardson, 512 F. 2d 105 (3d Cir.1975). While these cases do not address the specific issue of whether the statute of limitations alters t…
-
Clements v. State, 979 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…3 S.Ct. 2446, 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding “that a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution”); Andrews v. State, 392 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“The legislature can extend the limitations period without violating the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws if it (a) does so before prosecution is barred by the old statute, and (b) clearly indicates that…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rushing v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Arthur Eugene Manucy v. The Honorable W. L. Wadsworth, 293 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1974)
- Renaldo Reino, Sr. v. The State of Fla. & the Honorable Gerald T. Wetherington, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977)
- United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)
- Akers v. State, 370 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)