SHANNON DOYLE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Shannon Doyle petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent prosecution for lewd and lascivious assault, arguing that the delay violated his constitutional right to speedy trial and statute of limitations. The court denied the petition, finding that resolution of Doyle's claims requires evidentiary proceedings in the trial court and is therefore not appropriate for prohibition review.
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied because resolution of Doyle's constitutional speedy trial and statute of limitations claims requires evidentiary proceedings in the trial court to determine whether Doyle suffered actual prejudice from the delays and the defective waivers, making this matter inappropriate for prohibition review.
[1] A petition for writ of prohibition is not the proper procedural vehicle to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by delays or by the failure to have waivers of cou…
[2] A defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from a delay to establish a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
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“Although petitioner made a claim of violation of speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 in the trial court, it was denied for failure to file a notice of expiration of speedy trial time pursuant to Rule 3.191(p)(2), and he does not pursue the argument in this court.”
Establishes that Doyle's initial speedy trial claim was procedurally denied in the trial court and he did not appeal it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDoyle was arrested in 1993 for lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 and placed in a pretrial intervention (PTI) program. He remained in PTI…
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 Notice Of Expiration Of Speedy Trial Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shannon Doyle petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that prosecution on criminal charges would violate his constitutional right of speedy trial and the applicable statute of limitations. We deny the petition.
Doyle was arrested in 1993 on a charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16. No information was filed, however, and Doyle was placed in the pretrial intervention program (PTI). He remained in the program until 1999 but did not successfully complete it and an information was filed against him at that time. He executed documents which waived his rights to counsel and to speedy trial and the protections afforded by the statute of limitations in 1993, and others which later extended such waivers. It is undisputed, however, that the waivers of counsel were not witnessed by two persons attesting to the voluntariness thereof and they therefore did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(4).
Petitioner argues that since the waivers of counsel were not in compliance with the rule, the waivers of speedy trial and the statute of limitations were also invalid.
Section 948.08(2), Florida Statutes, specifically requires consultation with counsel prior to placement in the PTI program and waiver of the right of speedy trial and the statute of limitations.
Although petitioner made a claim of violation of speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 in the trial court, it was denied for failure to file a notice of expiration of speedy trial time pursuant to Rule 3.191(p)(2), and he does not pursue the argument in this court. Instead, he relies on the constitutional right to speedy trial and the statute of limitations. As for the former, petitioner must show, among other things, existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay. Seymour v. State, 738 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
With regard to the statute of limitations, it may be waived in a criminal prosecution. Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1984). The validity of Doyle’s waivers of counsel in this case turns on the question of the effect of noncompliance with Rule 3.111(d)(4). This, too, requires an examination of the prejudice to Doyle created by the failure to have the waivers properly witnessed. Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637 (Fla.1995); Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1976); Randall v. State, 691 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hogan v. State, 330 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
Determination of whether Doyle was prejudiced by the delays and by the failure to have the waivers of counsel properly witnessed will require an evidentiary proceeding before the trial court. As a result, this matter is not properly before us in a prohibition petition. McKinney v. Yawn, 625 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We therefore deny the petition, but without prejudice to Doyle’s right to raise the matter on direct appeal if he is convicted of the charges pending against him.
PETITION DENIED.
WOLF, DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earvin Smith v. State, 211 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ndant had expressly agreed to extend the statute of limitations in exchange for forbearance of charges while the parties attempted to negotiate a resolution in which defendant would enter into a pretrial diversion program. See, e.g., Doyle v. State, 783 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Lowe v. State, 501 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); United States v. Wild, 551 F. 2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (holding defendant could validly waive statute of limitations in effort to prevent being indicted during the completion of p…
-
Farrar v. State, 42 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…such, the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was properly denied. Even if we were to reach the substance of these arguments, however, we find no merit in them. Statutes of limitations on crimes are not jurisdictional, and may be waived. E.g., Doyle v. State, 783 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 796 So. 2d 536 (Fla.2001). In entering his 2008 pleas, Farrar expressly waived any statute of limitations defense in this case. Farrar also waived any double jeopardy claim by entering into his bargained-for plea agreeme…
-
Morris v. State, 909 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…itations and so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a judgment and sentence for the charge. In Florida, statutes of limitation on crimes are not jurisdictional and the defendant may waive the statute of limitations defense. Doyle v. State, 783 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 796 So. 2d 536 (Fla.2001); Mercer v. State, 654 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lowe v. State, 501 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Here, Morris successfully moved to dismiss the aggravated battery and false imprisonment…
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
- Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1995)
- Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)
- Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1976)
- McKINNEY v. Honorable Theron A. Yawn, Jr., 625 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Gus David Hogan v. State, 330 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Seymour v. State, 738 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Randall v. State, 691 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)