OSCARD BONEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Oscard Bonel was convicted of burglary after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss based on expiration of the statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving diligent efforts to serve the arrest warrant within the three-year limitations period, despite knowing the defendant's whereabouts.
The State failed to meet its burden of establishing that it was diligent in serving the arrest warrant prior to the expiration of the three-year limitations period for burglary. Because the State knew of the defendant's location and presented no explanation for failing to serve the warrant in time, the trial court was required to grant the motion to dismiss.
[1] When a statute of limitations defense is raised, the state bears the burden of proving that prosecution is not barred.
[2] A prosecution is commenced when an indictment or information is filed and the process issued is executed without unreasonable delay.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Once the jurisdiction of a court is questioned by the raising of the statute of limitations, the State has the burden to establish that the offense is not barred by the statute of limitations.”
Establishes that the burden is on the State to prove timely prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA burglary was committed on July 26, 1991. An arrest warrant was issued on June 6, 1994, while Bonel was incarcerated at Madison Correctional Institut…
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 Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Oscard Bonel, appeals from a conviction for burglary, following the denial of his motion to dismiss. We reverse.
On June 6, 1994, a warrant was issued for the arrest of appellant for a burglary committed on July 26, 1991. On the date this arrest warrant was issued, appellant was incarcerated in Madison Correctional Institution in Madison, Florida. On June 20, 1994, an information was filed charging appellant with committing the burglary. The previously issued arrest warrant was not served on appellant until August 4, 1994, when he was incarcerated in the Dade County jail.
Thereafter, appellant moved to dismiss the burglary charge based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the State presented no explanation for its failure to serve the warrant prior to the expiration of the limitations period. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the burglary charge, specifically reserving for appellate review the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. The court entered an adjudication of guilt, and sentenced appellant to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment.
Once the jurisdiction of a court is questioned by the raising of the statute of limitations, the State has the burden to establish that the offense is not barred by the statute of limitations. State v. King, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1973); Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Bragenzer v. State, 582 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Statutes of limitation in criminal cases are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Reino v. State, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1977); State v. Mack, 637 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
A prosecution for burglary of a dwelling, which is a second degree felony, must be commenced within three years after it is committed. § 775.15(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991). A prosecution is commenced, under section 775.15(5), Florida Statutes (1991), “when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay.” The word “executed” has been construed as meaning the completion of service on the defendant. State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1987).
In a case of pre-arrest delay, the State must show the reasonableness of the delay and that it was diligent in its efforts to serve the arrest warrant in order to bring the defendant before the court within the statutory limit. Gilmore v. State, 602 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 606 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1992); Bragenzer v. State, 582 So. 2d at 142; Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Here, the State presented no explanation regarding whether it had made any effort, let alone a diligent effort, to serve the arrest warrant on appellant prior to the expiration of the limitations period. See Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d at 563; Fleming v. State, 524 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Clearly, the State was aware of appellant’s whereabouts because appellant was incarcerated in a state institution.
Because the State has the burden to establish that it had been diligent in its efforts to serve the arrest warrant prior to the expiration of the limitations period, the State’s failure to meet that burden when the State knew of appellant’s whereabouts required the trial court to grant appellant’s motion to dismiss. See State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d at 1336; Colvin v. State, 541 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Gunn v. State, 519 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction, vacate his sentence and remand with directions to dismiss the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas v. State, 718 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…2d DCA), review dismissed, 584 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1991). When the defendant challenges the court’s jurisdiction by raising the statute of limitations, the State has the burden of demonstrating that the statute does not bar prosecution. Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); [*907] Bragenzer v. State, 582 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). To determine whether a delay in serving the defendant has been unreasonable the court must consider whether a diligent search was made to locate the defendant or whe…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 833 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…775.15(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fleming, 524 So. 2d at 1147; Coleman v. State, 655 So. 2d 1239, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Norris v. State, 784 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The record does not reflect that the state presented any evidence that it attempted to locate the appellant and serve her with process within the statute of limitations period. In the absence of such evidence, the state did…
-
Murphy v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…the fault here lies entirely with the State. As the Third District observed in a similarly situated case, the State is "[c]learly" aware of a defendant's whereabouts when that defendant is "incarcerated in a state institution." See Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In the case at bar the State has offered no compelling reason why it failed to execute a capias warrant for two and a half years on a defendant who had been in State custody the entire time. In so holding, we reject the Sta…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Rushing v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. King, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1973)
- Renaldo Reino, Sr. v. The State of Fla. & the Honorable Gerald T. Wetherington, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Mack, 637 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Myron Fleming v. State, 524 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Colvin v. State, 541 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Bragenzer v. State, 582 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)