THOMAS LETT, 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.
Petitioner Lett challenges Florida's attempt to prosecute him for sexual battery committed in 1980 after serving over 20 years in Maryland, arguing the statute of limitations has expired. The court grants a writ of prohibition, holding that Florida's 22-year delay in executing the arrest warrant—despite knowing Lett was imprisoned in Maryland—violated the statute of limitations and constitutes an unreasonable delay.
The court grants the writ of prohibition. A 22-year delay in executing process is unreasonable and bars prosecution. Filing a detainer is not equivalent to executing process under section 775.15(5), and the statute of limitations is not tolled while a defendant is incarcerated out of state; therefore, Florida's delay exceeded the three-year limitation period (plus potential three-year extension for continuous absence from the state).
[1] Prosecution is commenced for statute of limitations purposes when process issued on an indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay.
[2] An unexcused delay in serving process on a defendant after the statute of limitations has run bars prosecution.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 is commenced, for purposes of the statute of limitations, "when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay."”
Establishes that process must be executed without unreasonable delay for prosecution to commence under the statute of limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLett was charged with sexual battery in February 1980. An information was filed and warrant issued in 1980, and Florida placed a detainer on Lett thro…
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 Reasonable Delay In Executing Process cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner was charged with sexual battery committed in February, 1980, but before he was arrested he was convicted and incarcerated in Maryland for over twenty years. He seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent Florida from now prosecuting him because the statute of limitations has run. We grant the writ.
After the information was filed and warrant issued in 1980, Florida had the Maryland Department of Corrections place a detainer on petitioner, but did not seek extradition. The warrant was not served on petitioner until his release in 2002.
The applicable statute of limitations, section 775.15, Florida Statutes (1979), required prosecution to be commenced within three years of the commission of this second degree felony. § 775.15(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). That period could have been extended a maximum of three years if the defendant was eontin-uously absent from the state. § 775.15(6), Fla. Stat. (1979).1
A prosecution is commenced, for purposes of the statute of limitations, “when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay.” § 775.15(5), Fla. Stat. (1979). An unexcused delay in serving the appropriate process until after the statute of limitations has run bars prosecution for the offenses charged. Brown v. State, 674 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(finding that statute of limitations continues to run even while defendant is in the custody of another sovereign). The trial court concluded that the delay in executing the warrant was reasonable.
In State v. Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Florida knew the defendant was imprisoned in New Jersey, but, during an eight-year incarceration, did not attempt to execute process. The trial court held that the eight-year delay was unreasonable, and this court affirmed. See also State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1987); Colvin v. State, 541 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The filing of a detainer, which merely advises prison officials that a prisoner has other charges and requests notice of the prisoner’s release, is not the equivalent of the process contemplated by section 775.15(5). Gethers v. State, 798 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) and cases cited. The only issue in this case, accordingly, is whether the twenty year delay is reasonable. We conclude that it is not. In Brown v. State, 674 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the court, holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled when a defendant is incarcerated out of state, explained:
We recognize that our decision places a burden on the state to monitor the limitations period and to extradite a defendant when necessary to avoid having a prosecution barred by a statute of limitations. We do not find this to be an inappropriate burden. Nor do we find it to be an unreasonable burden given the ability of the state to obtain a defendant from the custody of either another state or the federal authorities pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. See § 941.45, Fla. Stat. (1993); 18 U.S.CApp. 2, § 1 et seq.
Id. at 741-42 (footnotes omitted).
We therefore grant the writ.
POLEN, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur. . In 1997 the statute was amended to excuse the failure to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state. § 775.15(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). That amendment is not applicable. State v. Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(the statute of limitations applicable is the one in effect when the crime was committed).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goings v. State, 76 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ted for prosecution from another state.” Ch. 97-90, § 1, at 514, Laws of Fla. This amendment to the statute of limitations is not retroactive, and does not control here. See Torgerson v. State, 964 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Lett v. State, 837 So. 2d 614, 615 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); State v. Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728, 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (the statute of limitations applicable is the one in effect when the crime was committed). It can be argued that section 775.15(6), Florida Statutes (1993), has…
-
Kidd v. State, 985 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…DCA 2005) (granting prohibition and concluding the three-year statute of limitations had run on a forgery charge where the petitioner had been arrested, but prosecution had not been commenced by the filing of an information); see also Lett v. State, 837 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The filing of a detainer, which merely advises prison officials that a prisoner has other charges and requests notice of the prisoner’s release, is not the equivalent of the process contemplated by section 775.15(5).”). T…
-
Ehrlick v. State, 898 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state who has been charged by information or indictment with a crime in this state shall not constitute an unreasonable delay.” See § 775.15(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1998); see also Lett v. State, 837 So. 2d 614, 615 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“In 1997 the statute was amended to excuse the failure to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state”). . Were we to hold otherwise, we would establish precedent that whenever a defendant leaves the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 674 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Gethers v. State, 798 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1987)
- Colvin v. State, 541 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Salim Youssef Shamy, 759 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)