EDWARD ALEXANDER NAVARRO, 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.
Edward Alexander Navarro was charged with conspiracy to commit cargo theft, solicitation to commit cargo theft, and conspiracy to deal in stolen property. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations, but the appellate court agreed with the State's confession of error and reversed, finding that the three-year statute of limitations (not the five-year statute) applied to the conspiracy and solicitation charges.
The five-year statute of limitations in section 812.035(10) does not apply to conspiracy and solicitation charges. Although section 812.035(10) encompasses the substantive offenses of dealing in stolen property and cargo theft, it does not encompass conspiracy or solicitation to commit those offenses. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations in section 775.15(2)(b) applies, and the Information was filed beyond the applicable limitations period.
[1] A general statute of limitations does not apply to offenses specifically covered by a more specific statute of limitations.
[2] Conspiracy and solicitation offenses are governed by the general statute of limitations for criminal actions, not by statutes of limitations specific to the underlying su…
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“Even though the language of section 812.035(10) encompasses the substantive offenses of dealing in stolen property and cargo theft over $50,000, it does not encompass the offenses of conspiracy to deal in stolen property or the solicitation and/or conspiracy to commit cargo theft over $50,000.”
Establishes the key distinction that while the five-year statute applies to substantive offenses, it does not apply to conspiracy and solicitation charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNavarro was charged by Information with conspiracy to commit cargo theft over $50,000, solicitation to commit cargo theft over $50,000, and conspiracy…
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 Solicitation cases and more on FLexlaw
CONFESSION OF ERROR
The defendant, Edward Alexander Navarro, was charged by Information with conspiracy to commit cargo theft over $50,000, a second degree felony; solicitation to commit cargo theft over $50,000, a second degree felony; and conspiracy to deal in stolen property, a third degree felony. The defendant moved to dismiss the Information, asserting that based on the allegations in the Information, the prosecution was commenced beyond the three-year statute of limitations set forth in section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004).
In response, the State argued that the five-year statute of limitations set forth in section 812.035(10) was applicable because it was more specific than the general three-year statute of limitations in section 775.15(2)(b). Section 812.035(10) provides that “a criminal ... action or proceeding under ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 812.081 may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the cause of action accrues.” The State reasoned that because section 812.014(2)(a)2 pertains to the theft of cargo valued at $50,000 or more, and section 812.019(1) pertains to dealing in stolen property, the five-year statute of limitations is applicable.
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to deal in stolen property, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and the State dismissed the two remaining counts. The defendant’s appeal followed.
Based upon the State’s proper confession of error, we find that the five-year statute of limitations in section 812.035(10) is inapplicable. Even though the language of section 812.035(10) encompasses the substantive offenses of dealing in stolen property and cargo theft over $50,000, it does not encompass the offenses of conspiracy to deal in stolen property or the solicitation and/or conspiracy to commit cargo theft over $50,000. Rather, as the parties acknowledge, the conspiracy and solicitation charges are violations of section 777.04, which pertains to “Attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy.” Therefore, as the Information was filed beyond the applicable three-year limitations period set forth in section 775.15(2)(b), we reverse the defendant’s conviction and sentence.
Reversed.