STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL R. HAMPTON, 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.
Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a dismissal of a grand theft charge, holding that the applicable statute of limitations for grand theft prosecutions is five years under section 812.035(10), not three years as previously established in Wells v. State. The court receded from its earlier Wells opinion, which had incorrectly assumed the general three-year felony statute of limitations applied to grand theft.
The court held that section 812.035(10), the specific statute governing theft offenses, controls and establishes a five-year statute of limitations for grand theft prosecutions. The court receded from Wells v. State to the extent it indicated the statute of limitations for grand theft is three years.
[1] A criminal prosecution for grand theft is governed by the five-year statute of limitations provided in section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes.
[2] A general statute of limitations does not apply when a more specific statute governs the same subject matter.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 812.081 may be commenced at any time within five years after the cause of action accrues.”
The specific statute of limitations for grand theft prosecutions, which the court held supersedes the general three-year limitation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Hampton was charged with grand theft. The trial court dismissed the charge because the information was filed more than three years after the offe…
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 General Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The defendant below, Paul Hampton, obtained a dismissal of a grand theft charge against him on the basis that the information was filed more than three years after the offense. The dismissal was based on this court’s opinion in Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes.1
The state, on the other hand, contends that Wells is clearly erroneous and that section 775.15(2)(b), a general statute, does not apply. It contends that grand theft prosecutions are controlled by the more specific statute of limitations found in section 812.035(10), which provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 812.081 may be commenced at any time within five years after the cause of action accrues. (Emphasis supplied).
In support of its position, the state cites to the conflict between Wells and an earlier opinion from this court, State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Other district courts are in agreement with Bare. See, e.g., O’Malley v. Mounts, 590 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1992); State v. Guthrie, 567 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Franklin v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Chacon, 479 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1987).
We agree with the state. In Wells the issue that was argued to, and addressed by, this court was the time at which a prosecution is deemed to have been “commenced” and the reasonableness of the delay in prosecuting that case. The parties in Wells, and the panel, apparently accepted as a given that the applicable statute of limitations was three years in accordance with section 775.15. That assumption was wrong, and we hereby recede from the language in Wells which indicated that the statute of limitations for the prosecution of grand theft is three years. The correct period is five years as indicated by section 812.035(10).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, W. SHARP, GOSHORN, HARRIS, GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . This section provides that a prosecution for any felony other than a capital or life felony, or a felony of the first degree, must be commenced within three years after it is committed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e s failure to present any evidence to explain or excuse its delay in serving the arrest warrant in this case is fatal to the prosecution. See Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (receded from on different grounds in State v. Hampton, 692 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); Fleming, 524 So. 2d 1146. Therefore, we grant the petition, issue the writ, and order the trial court to discharge Billie Jean Neal. FULMER, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur. . § 316.027(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). .…
-
Anderson v. State, 697 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…HARRIS, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Courts occasionally make judgments based on inaccurate assumptions. See, for example, our recent decision in State v. Hampton, 692 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), in which we were required to correct our earlier opinion in Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), a case in which we had improperly relied on the State’s tacit concession that a particular statute of limitation was…
-
State v. Telesz, 873 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…o the special statute of limitations for theft. See also Williams v. State, 707 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Several other district courts have held that section 812.035 takes precedent over section 775.15 in grand theft cases. State v. Hampton, 692 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that the more specific five-year statute of limitations period in section 812.035 applied to grand theft rather than the more general statute, section 775.15); O’Malley v. Mounts, 590 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1987)
- Wells v. State, 571 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- O'Malley v. Mounts, 590 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Chacon, 479 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Davis v. State, 567 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Guthrie, 567 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Barchanowicz v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Franklin v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)