JACK W. BRIDENTHAL, 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.
The court held that some of the defendant's convictions were barred by the statute of limitations, while others were affirmed.
The defendant appealed convictions for grand larceny, grand theft, and common law cheat. In separate appeals by codefendants, this court had reversed …
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 Jurisdictional Question cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The defendant appeals his convictions on seven counts of grand larceny, eleven counts of grand theft, and three counts of common law cheat. We find no merit in any of the issues raised by the defendant.
However, in the separate appeals of the defendant’s codefendants, this court has issued an opinion reversing the code-fendants’ convictions on the seven larceny counts on the ground that the larceny counts are barred by the statute of limitations. Maguire v. State, 453 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The statute of limitations is a jurisdictional issue and this court is not foreclosed from considering that issue notwithstanding that the issue was not raised at the trial or appellate level. Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla.1958).
Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 5 and 18 through 20 in case no. 81-499 as being barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the defendant’s convictions in all other respects.
REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earvin Smith v. State, 211 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…438, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the Second District stated: “A defendant need not raise the bar of the statute of limitations and his failure to do so does not preclude appellate consideration of the issue.”15 In a companion case, Bridenthal v. State, 453 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the Second District reaffirmed its holding in Maguire: [I]n the separate appeals of the defendant’s codefendants, this court has issued an opinion reversing the codefen-dants’ convictions on the seven larceny counts on the…
-
Guzman v. State, 211 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…n today’s concurring opinion in Smith v. State, the error may be raised for the first time on appeal as fundamental error. Key v. State, 990 So. 2d 529, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1958); Bridenthal v. State, 453 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Maguire v. State, 453 So. 2d 438, 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This defendant did not knowingly and personally divest himself of this right. Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306, 309 (Fla. 1984). In appropriate circumstances, and this woul…
Authorities Cited
- Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1958)
- Maguire v. State, 453 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)