JUAN MATOS, 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.
A nolle prosequi filed after the statute of limitations expires effectively terminates the proceeding, and any subsequent refiling of charges is barred by the statute of limitations.
A nolle prosequi filed after the statute of limitations has expired nullifies the original information, and any subsequent refiling of charges after the limitations period is barred.
[1] A nolle prosequi filed after expiration of the statute of limitations nullifies the information, and any subsequent refiling of charges is barred by the statute of limita…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 nolle prosequi effectively ends the proceeding and any subsequent action is a nullity.”
Explaining the legal effect of a nolle prosequi filed after the statute of limitations expires.
Juan Matos was charged with a crime. The State filed a nolle prosequi after the statute of limitations had expired, then immediately refiled the infor…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan Matos has filed a petition for writ of prohibition arguing that the trial court is without jurisdiction to proceed because the statute of limitations has expired. Prohibition is a proper method to bring this type of challenge. Pontius v. State, 932 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Cheffer v. Judge, Div. ‘S’, 15th Judicial Circuit, 614 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). We grant the petition and direct the dismissal of the charges.
This is not a case like those relied on by the trial court and the State which involved the State’s filing of an amended information. See, e.g., Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1980); State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, the State filed a nolle prosequi after the statute of limitations had expired. A nolle prosequi effectively ends the proceeding and any subsequent action is a nullity. See, e.g., State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla.1984) (nolle prosequi amounts to nullification of information and renders nugatory any proceedings carried on subsequently under same information); Pur chase v. State, 866 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Sadler v. State, 949 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Though the State immediately refiled the information addressed to the same charges, it was after the statute of limitations expired. Compare Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Consequently, Ma-tos’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. See, e.g., Ball v. Goodman, 249 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Petition Granted.
SHAHOOD, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jamell Demons, 351 So. 3d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…mely filed notice of intent. Id. Of course, if the state had nolle prossed the charges filed in the original indictment, then the state would have had to re-notice the defendant of the state’s intent to seek the death penalty. See Matos v. State, 961 So. 2d 1077, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for charges filed after the statute of limitations should have been granted where the state chose to nolle prosse the original charges, which “effectively ends the proceeding…
-
Manzini v. State, 115 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ction to proceed against him. Prohibition is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a trial court’s continued jurisdiction to preside over a criminal prosecution said to be beyond the statute of limitations for the offense charged. See Matos v. State, 961 So. 2d 1077, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his second motion to dismiss. We find the trial court’s denial was not legal error because petitioner’s motion was traversed by…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Murray Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Hickson v. State, 614 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Fine v. Remax Advantage Plus, 949 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Purchase v. State, 866 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Sadler v. State, 949 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State of Fla. ex rel. v. Honorable Murray Goodman, 249 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Cherie Walker v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 932 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)