STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HUGH GUTHRIE, BRYSON HILL, AND BERRY SHIRLEY, APPELLEES
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 State of Florida appealed the dismissal of a grand theft charge filed outside the statute of limitations. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the tolling provision in section 775.15(6) does not apply to the five-year statute of limitations for theft under section 812.035(10), which contains the language "notwithstanding any other provision of law."
The tolling provision in section 775.15(6) does not apply to the five-year statute of limitations for theft under section 812.035(10). The theft statute's "notwithstanding any other provision of law" language, combined with its own tolling provisions and different construction standards, demonstrates that the legislature did not intend for the general tolling provision to extend the special theft statute of limitations.
[1] The tolling provision in section 775.15(6), Florida Statutes, does not apply to the five-year statute of limitations for theft under section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes…
[2] A statute of limitations for a criminal offense must be liberally construed in favor of the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years.”
This is the tolling provision in section 775.15(6) that the state sought to apply to the theft statute, which the court held does not apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants were charged with grand theft for an alleged offense occurring on April 8, 1983. The information was filed on December 20, 1988, five years…
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 Securities Law Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The state appeals an order dismissing one count of a multiple-count information, which charged the defendants with racketeering, securities violations and grand theft. The trial court dismissed one of the grand theft charges because the information was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal because the tolling provision in section 775.15(6), Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply to the five-year statute of limitations for theft. § 812.035(10), Fla.Stat. (1983).
The information charged the defendants with grand theft for an alleged offense on April 8, 1983. The information was filed on December 20, 1988, five years and eight months after the alleged offense. The state admits that this offense is governed by the five-year statute of limitations established in section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes (1983), rather than by the three-year period established in section 775.-15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). Franklin v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The state seeks to extend the five-year period by proving that the defendants were continuously absent from the state during a portion of the five-year period. Section 775.15(6) provides:
The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years.
The state argues that this tolling provision applies not only to the general periods of limitation provided in section 775.15, but also to the more specific period provided in section 812.035(10). We cannot accept this argument.
Section 812.035(10) provides a five-year period for both criminal and civil theft actions “[njotwithstanding any other provision of law.” The statute contains its own tolling provisions and does not expressly adopt the tolling provision in section 775.-15(6). Section 812.035 does not require a strict construction but is to be construed in light of its remedial goal. § 812.037, Fla. Stat. (1983). On the other hand, section 775.15 must be strictly construed. § 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Typically, a statute of limitations for a criminal offense must be liberally construed in favor of the defendant. State v. King, 275 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA), aff'd, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, we do not believe the legislature has authorized the state to apply section 775.15(6) to the special statute of limitations for theft.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hampton, 692 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…pinion from this court, State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Other district courts are in agreement with Bare. See, e.g., O’Malley v. Mounts, 590 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1992); State v. Guthrie, 567 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Franklin v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Chacon, 479 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Fields, 505 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1987). We agree with the state. In Wells the issue…
-
State v. Perez, 72 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…recognized that a more specific statute controls over a more general statute. Telesz, 873 So. 2d at 1237-38 (holding that section 812.035(10) takes precedent over section 775.15 in theft cases and citing collection of authorities); State v. Guthrie, 567 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (rejecting argument that section 775.15 tolling provision applies to the more specific provision in section 812.035(10) and noting that the latter statute specified that its statute of limitations controls “notwithstanding an…
-
Donnie Ray Williams v. State, 707 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…Section 775.15(6), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides that the limitations period may be tolled if the defendant is continually absent from the state, does not apply to this case because the crime charged was grand theft. See State v. Guthrie, 567 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes, the grand theft statute of limitations, was amended in 1992 to add a similar tolling provision. But that provision does not apply to crimes committed in 1989. See Arnold v. State, 689 S…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. King, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. King, 275 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Barchanowicz v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Franklin v. State, 505 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)