Tampa criminal court case results
- tampa attorney gets robbery charge dismissed
- facts: Our client was charged with robbery, a second degree felony, in March of 1985. The charging document for the offense was filed in March of 1986. Before being prosecuted, however, our client was arrested in Colorado for an unrelated criminal offense. Due to the client's absence from the state of Florida before being subject to prosecution (having received a multi-year prison sentence in Colorado), the state of Florida issued a warrant (capias) on the charging document for our client's arrest. This would essentially allow the state more time to gain custody of the client and bring the client in for prosecution. After serving the Colorado sentence and being released from police custody in Colorado, the client was again arrested there on December 28, 2007, on an unrelated charge. The client was then extradited to Florida pursuant to the outstanding warrant for robbery that had been issued 21 years prior to this arrest. At this point the client contacted our firm.
- defense: The statutes of limitation that apply in a given case are those that were in effect at the time the incidents occurred that gave rise to the criminal charges. Section 775.15 of the Florida Statutes in 1985 provided in pertinent part that "a prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within four (4) years after it is committed." It further provided that, "a prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within three (3) years after it is committed." Because our client was being charged with a second degree felony in this case, the limitation of three years was applicable. Section 775.15(5) (1985), reads, "a prosecution is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. A capias was issued in this case in 1986.
- Also, because our client had been out-of-state during that time, Section 775.15(6) of Florida Statutes would apply. In 1985, that section stated, "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 three (3) years."
- Our firm attacked our client's charge on two statute of limitations grounds. The first was that the capias was not executed "without unreasonable delay." Though our client was in fact in the Colorado prison system, and therefore many miles away from Florida prosecution, our client sent a letter to Florida officials, asking to be extradited. The state did not respond to this request, despite knowing exactly where to find our client at that point. Because of this, we were able to argue that the state did not at all pursue the capias on the information "without unreasonable delay." Another ground for dismissal of this case was that Section 775.15(6) F.S. (1985) provided that the period of limitation in no case could be extended by more than three years. Here, our client was arrested a full 21 years after the filing of the information.
- results: Because the state knew of our client's presence in the Colorado prison system, and failed to extradite our client pursuant to the capias issued, the charge was dismissed.
- related articles:
-
Cases by Practice Area
