CARMEOEGA PINERO
v.
STATE
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.
Rafael Carmoega-Pinero petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the State from prosecuting him for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence, arguing the statute of limitations had expired. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the State failed to demonstrate either diligent pursuit of the defendant or tolling of the statute of limitations.
The petition for writ of prohibition is granted. The State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating either reasonable delay due to diligent search for the defendant or that the statute of limitations was tolled because the defendant was continuously absent from the state.
[1] A prosecution must be commenced within the statutory period of limitations.
[2] The State bears the burden of demonstrating that a delay in commencing prosecution was reasonable due to diligent efforts to locate the defendant.
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“the State carries the burden of demonstrating that either 1) the delay was reasonable because the State was diligent in its search for Defendant, or 2) the statute of limitations was tolled because Defendant was continuously absent from the State of Florida”
Establishes the two-part legal standard the State must meet to proceed with prosecution after the statute of limitations period expires.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarmoega-Pinero was charged with two counts of Violation of an Injunction for Protection against Domestic Violence for alleged offenses on June 19 and…
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 Diligent Search cases and more on FLexlaw
401 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 [email protected]
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Rafael Carmoega-Pinero, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the State from proceeding with its prosecution where the applicable statute of limitations has expired.
Petitioner was charged with two counts of Violation of an Injunction for Protection against Domestic Violence. The dates of the alleged offenses were June 19, 2014, and June 20, 2014. Because the charged offenses were first-degree misdemeanors, the State had two years, until June
Page 1 of 2 19, 2016, to commence the prosecution. See § 741.31(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014); § 775.15(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014); Morelli v. State, 198 So. 3d 997, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). While the Information was filed and the warrant was issued on July 15, 2014, Defendant was not arrested until August 31, 2016—outside of the two-year window. Therefore, the State carries the burden of demonstrating that either 1) the delay was reasonable because the State was diligent in its search for Defendant, or 2) the statute of limitations was tolled because Defendant was continuously absent from the State of Florida. § 775.15(5), Fla. Stat. (2014); State v. Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The evidence presented to the trial court does not support the finding that the State conducted a diligent search for Defendant and the State has failed to demonstrate that the delay in executing Defendant's arrest warrant was reasonable. See Morelli v. State, 198 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); State v. Mack, 637 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Norton v. State, 173 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
The State has also failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that Defendant was continuously absent from the state in order to toll the statute of limitations. See State v. Sutton, 784 So. 2d 1239, 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is GRANTED.
BURTON, JOHNSON, and CARACUZZO JJ., concur. Page 2 of 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION (CRIMINAL): AC CASE NO.: 502017AP000005AXXXMB L.T. NO.: 502014MM010242AXXXMB
RAFAEL CARMOEGA-PINERO, Petitioner,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
Opinion/Decision filed: MAY 1 0 2017
Petition for Writ of Prohibition from County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida; Judge Debra Moses Stevens
Petition filed: December 29, 2016
DATE OF PANEL: April 24, 2017
PANEL JUDGES: BURTON, JOHNSON, CARACUZZO
GRANTED/DENIED/OTHER: PETITION GRANTED
PER CURIAM OPINION/DECISION BY: PER CURIAM
DATE CONCURRING: CBM 5/8/17 51017 J. J. J. Chery Cascy 13/17 ) DISSENTING: ) With Opinion ) ) ) ) CONCURRING SPECIALLY: ) ) With/Without Opinion ) ) ) J. ) ) ) J. ) ) ) J. ) ) ) J. ) ) ) J. ) ) ) J. )
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mack, 637 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State v. Salim Youssef Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Oscard Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Kari-Lynn Norton v. State, 173 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Morelli v. State, 198 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Sutton v. State, 784 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)