RAMONA V. MACKINNON, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of prohibition vacating forgery and uttering charges against MacKinnon because prosecution was not commenced within the three-year statute of limitations, despite her June 2002 arrest for crimes allegedly committed in April 2000.
The court held that prosecution of MacKinnon on forgery and uttering charges is barred by the three-year statute of limitations under section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes, because prosecution could be commenced only by filing an indictment or information, and this was not done within three years of the commission of the offenses.
[1] Prosecution for forgery and uttering must be commenced within three years of the commission of the offenses.
[2] The filing of an indictment or information is required to commence prosecution for forgery and uttering.
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 MacKinnon was arrested on the forgery and uttering charges, prosecution could be commenced only by the filing of an indictment or information.”
Establishes that arrest does not commence prosecution; only filing of indictment or information does.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamona V. MacKinnon was arrested in June 2002 on charges including forgery, uttering, grand theft, and exploitation of the elderly. The crimes were al…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ramona V. MacKinnon was arrested in June 2002 on charges of forgery, uttering, grand theft, and exploitation of the elderly. She was charged by information with grand theft. When an amended information filed in August 2003 added charges of forgery and uttering, MacKinnon moved to dismiss those counts on statute of limitations grounds because the crimes were alleged to have been committed in April of 2000. See § 775.15(2)(b), Fla. Stat. The trial court denied the motion and Mac-Kinnon petitions this court for a writ of prohibition. We have jurisdiction in accordance with State ex rel. Ridenour v. Bryson, 380 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Studnicka v. Carlisle, 553 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Further, we conclude that the forgery and uttering charges are barred by the three-year statute of limitations and, accordingly, grant the petition.
Although MacKinnon was arrested on the forgery and. uttering charges, prosecution could be commenced only by the filing of an indictment or information. State v. Watkins, 685 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); § 775.15(5)(a), Fla. Stat. By failing to timely charge petitioner with forgery and uttering within three years of the commission of the offenses, the statute of limitations ran. Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Cases such as Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1980), and State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which involved amending the informations to correct the names of the victims, are completely distinguishable and do not control the outcome of the case at bar. We must therefore find that prosecution of MacKinnon on forgery and uttering charges is barred by the statute of limitations and we grant the prohibition petition as to the forgery and uttering charges.
PETITION GRANTED.
KAHN, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murray Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- State v. Watkins, 685 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Clarence v. Ridenour and John R. Bostrom, 380 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Studnicka v. Honorable James T. Carlisle, 553 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)