ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, 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.
Elizabeth Williams appealed her criminal conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state failed to present evidence of diligent efforts to locate and serve Williams within the statute of limitations period, thereby failing to satisfy its burden of establishing that the offense was not time-barred.
The court held that once the appellant challenged trial court jurisdiction by raising a statute of limitations issue, the state bore the burden of presenting evidence that it made a diligent search to locate and serve the appellant within the statute of limitations period. Because the state presented no such evidence, it did not satisfy its burden, and the conviction cannot stand.
[1] When a defendant challenges a trial court's jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations, the state bears the burden of proving the offense is not time-barred.
[2] To satisfy the burden of proving an offense is not time-barred, the state must present evidence of diligent efforts to locate and serve the defendant within the limitatio…
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“Once the jurisdiction of the trial court was challenged by the appellant raising a statute of limitations issue, the state had the burden of establishing that the offense was not barred by the statute of limitations.”
Establishes that the burden shifts to the state when defendant challenges jurisdiction on statute of limitations grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted at trial, but the state had not served her with process within the statute of limitations period. The trial court denied Willia…
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 Due Diligence In Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals her conviction on the basis that the trial court should not have denied her motion to dismiss. The appellant claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict her where the state failed to serve her with any process within the statute of limitations period, and did not show any due diligence in attempting to locate her for such service. We agree.
Once the jurisdiction of the trial court was challenged by the appellant raising a statute of limitations issue, the state had the burden of establishing that the offense was not barred by the statute of limitations. See Fleming v. State, 524 So. 2d 1146, 1146-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sutton v. State, 784 So. 2d 1239, 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 1248, 1249-1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). To do this, the state .had to present evidence that it made a diligent search to locate and serve the appellant within the statute of limitations period. See § 775.15(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fleming, 524 So. 2d at 1147; Coleman v. State, 655 So. 2d 1239, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Norris v. State, 784 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The record does not reflect that the state presented any evidence that it attempted to locate the appellant and serve her with process within the statute of limitations period. In the absence of such evidence, the state did not satisfy its burden of establishing that the appellant’s offense was not barred by the statute of limitations. See Fleming, 524 So. 2d at 1146-47; Sutton, 784 So. 2d at 1241; Wright, 600 So. 2d at 1249-1250.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Myron Fleming v. State, 524 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Prine v. State, 784 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Norris v. State, 784 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Oscard Bonel v. State, 651 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Coleman v. State, 655 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)