JOHN ROBINSON, 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 the prosecution was commenced too late because the statute of limitations had run, and any extension for the defendant's absence from the state was exceeded.
The defendant was unavailable for several years after committing offenses, and process was served beyond the six-year statute of limitations. The tria…
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 Absence From The State cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We reverse appellant’s conviction. In this appeal, Robinson relies not on his innocence but on the rules of the game to demand relief. We agree that under the applicable statutes the prosecution was commenced too late.
After committing the offenses charged herein, Robinson moved to Georgia and remained there for several years. It is conceded that during this period, Robinson was unavailable. Process was ultimately served on Robinson beyond six years of the commission of the offenses. Because he was out of state and because he used several aliases, the court denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss the causes against him.
Section 775.15(5), Florida Statutes, permits the filing of the information to be considered the commencement of the action if the process is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining whether the delay is reasonable, failure to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant’s absence from the state must be considered. Here, the State failed to urge that it made any diligent search to locate the defendant for execution of the information at any time during the applicable statute of limitations. After Robinson’s motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations, the State appears to have learned of Robinson’s absence from the state and his use of aliases, but made no effort to show that efforts to serve him were thwarted by these facts. And, in any event, section 775.15(6), Florida Statutes, which specifically considers a defendant’s absence from the state and permits the period of limitation to be extended therefor, limits such extension to a maximum of three years. That was exceeded in this case.
REVERSED and REMANDED for action consistent with this opinion.
THOMPSON, C.J., and PALMER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goings v. State, 76 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…statute of limitations could have been extended a maximum of three years if the defendant was continuously absent from the state, but deciding the case on the basis that the twenty-year delay in serving capias was not reasonable); Robinson v. State, 773 So. 2d 1266, 1266-67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (finding that the state failed to show that delay was reasonable under section 775.15(5), but noting that “in any event, section 775.15(6) ... which specifically considers a defendant’s absence from the state and permits…