HUBERT BABB, 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.
Hubert Babb appeals his convictions for sexual battery on his minor daughter, challenging the sufficiency of the statute of limitations for certain counts and arguing the information violated his due process right to speedy trial. The court affirms all convictions, holding that capital felonies have no statute of limitations and that other sexual battery charges are tolled until the victim reaches age 16 or the offense is reported to law enforcement.
The court affirmed the conviction for capital sexual battery, holding that prosecutions for capital felonies may be commenced at any time under Florida law. The other convictions are subject to tolling provisions in section 775.15(7), Fla. Stat., which suspend the limitations period until the victim reaches age 16 or the offense is reported to a governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Appellant's arguments based on the Dr. Gilgun report were not preserved for appellate review.
[1] Prosecution for a capital or life felony may be commenced at any time.
[2] For offenses against a victim under 16, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim reaches 16 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement age…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A prosecution for a capital or life felony may be commenced at any time.”
Establishes that capital sexual battery has no statute of limitations under Florida law, defeating appellant's speedy trial argument as to Count I.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of four crimes involving serious sexual misconduct with his then-minor daughter. A psychological evaluation by Dr. Lawrence J.…
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 Tolling Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of his convictions for four crimes arising out of serious sexual misconduct with his then minor daughter. As to Counts II, III, and V, appellant argues that he should have been discharged by the trial court because the statute of limitations had run on these allegations. As to Count I, sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve, a capital felony, appellant argues that the information upon which he was convicted was filed in violation of his constitutional due process right to a speedy trial.
We affirm the conviction for capital sexual battery. See § 775.15(1), Fla. Stat. (1985)(“A prosecution for a capital or life felony may be commenced at any time.”) The other convictions are subject to the tolling provisions contained in section 775.15(7), Florida Statutes (1985), the statute in effect at the time of the crimes here at issue:
If the victim of a violation of s. 794.011, s. 794.05, s. 800.04, or s. 826.04 is under the age of 16, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 16 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. This subsection applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before December 31, 1984.
Appellant relies in part upon an October 1991 psychological evaluation performed by Dr. Lawrence J. Gilgun, a copy of which was apparently provided to the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services immediately after the evaluation. Appellant argues that the charges were filed outside the applicable limitations period, which, according to appellant should have begun running no later than the time Dr. Gilgun’s report was provided to Health and Rehabilitative Services. This report, contained in the record, details sexual molestation of the minor victim by appellant, including incidents of digital penetration.
Nevertheless, the record before us contains no indication that any evidence of Dr. Gilgun’s report was presented to the trial court prior to the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, appellant’s argument, based on Dr. Gilgun’s report, is not preserved for appellate review. Those arguments that have been preserved for appellate review are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and DAVIS, JJ„ CONCUR.