CHARLIE JAMES HENRY, JR., ETC., 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.
Charlie James Henry, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion for discharge based on statute of limitations grounds. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that Henry waived his statute of limitations defense by failing to timely raise it and that prosecution was commenced within the applicable statute of limitations.
The court affirmed the denial of Henry's motion for discharge, holding that Henry waived his statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it timely in his initial motions after arraignment, and that the State commenced prosecution well within the applicable statute of limitations.
[1] A prosecution is commenced within the statute of limitations when the State files an information charging the defendant and the defendant is arraigned and pleads not guil…
[2] A defendant may waive a claim that the statute of limitations has expired by failing to raise the claim in a timely manner.
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“Hellmund waived his claim on motion to dismiss that service of process was untimely, where his original motion to dismiss did not raise a limitation on prosecution claim and his motion raising the claim was filed almost three years later.”
Establishes the waiver doctrine for statute of limitations defense when not timely raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry was arrested on January 11, 1996, and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resisting an officer without violence,…
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 Diligent Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Charlie James Henry, Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for discharge contending that the applicable statute of limitations barred his prosecution.
The record reveals that the defendant was arrested on January 11, 1996.
On January 16, 1996, the defendant filed a Notice of Invocation of Right to Counsel.
On February 1, 1996, the State filed an information charging the defendant with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of resisting an officer without violence, and one count of aggravated battery.
On February 1,1996, the defendant was arraigned and pled not guilty. Reciprocal discovery was invoked February 1, 1996. June 5, 1996, the defendant’s ore terms motion for continuance was granted. It seems that defendant was then released on bail.
On July 15, 1997, a detainer was placed against the defendant with the Department of Corrections.
On October 9, 2001, the defendant filed his motion for discharge, alleging that the statute of limitations had expired. It seems that in the interim, the defendant had committed some crimes for which he was convicted in Hillsborough County and upon service of his sentence, he was released from the Department of Corrections to the Director of Public Safety for Miami-Dade County.
The defendant relies on Lems v. State, 765 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), wherein the Second District concluded that the time limitation for prosecution of the crimes allegedly committed by Lewis was not extended by State’s inability to locate and arrest him, in the absence of evidence that the State had conducted a diligent search.
However the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from Lewis. Rather, directly applicable to defendant Henry’s claim, is State v. Hellmund, 723 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), wherein we concluded that Hellmund waived his claim on motion to dismiss that service of process was untimely, where his original motion to dismiss did not raise a limitation on prosecution claim and his motion raising the claim was filed almost three years later. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190. Here, as outlined above, the State commenced prosecution well within the statute of limitations. When the defendant pled not guilty, he was given fifteen days to file any motions, and no motions were filed during that time.
In sum, the process necessary to commence prosecution had occurred. See State v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, the denial of the defendant’s motion for discharge is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Alphonso Lewis v. State, 765 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- State v. Leopoldo Hellmund, 723 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)