THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RENE GUERRA AND JOHN JARRELL, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the State of Florida from a judgment dismissing a second information upon the ground that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, see F.S. § 932.05, F.S.A. The record reveals clearly that the crime, if committed, occurred in September of 1966; that the first information which was filed in September of 1968 (two days before the expiration of the statute) was dismissed upon the State’s motion for a nolle prosequi, solely because the State was not ready to proceed with trial. Under these circumstances, the second information which was filed in February of 1970, was beyond the period provided by the statute. Cf. Mead v. State, Fla. 1958, 101 So.2d 373; Pena v. Schultz, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 49 (released Feb. 24, 1971); State ex rel. Bird v. Stedman, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So.2d 85.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ert. denied, 194 So. 2d 618 (1966). Generally, when the state nolle prosses a charge, it cannot file a new information on the same charge after the statute of limitations has run. State v. Garcia, 245 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Guerra, 245 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Under the facts of this case, however, the state need not file new infor-mations, because we are directing that the original informations be reinstated. The reinstatement of the original informations will not frustrate the purpos…
-
McBRIDE v. Pratt & Whitney & Ace USA, 909 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…n the state enters a nol pros in a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 315 (2005); Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298, 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State ex rel. Ball v. Goodman, 249 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Guerra, 245 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Garcia, 245 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). We have previously inferred that this rule applies in workers’ compensation cases. Kinsey v. Skyline Corp., 395 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Morris Canning Cor…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. v. Honorable Murray Goodman, 249 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ponse. On consideration thereof after argument on notice we hold the response fails to show cause why prohibition should not issue. Accordingly, we grant judgment in prohibition in favor of the relator, on authority of State v. Guerra, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 889; and State v. Garcia, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 293. We assume that in view of our holding in this matter it will not become necessary to issue a formal writ of prohibition herein. It is so ordered.…
Authorities Cited
- Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1958)
- Pena v. Schultz, 245 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1971)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Ulysses Bird v. The Honorable Carling Stedman, 223 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)