Carcaise v. Durden, 79-89
| Decision Date | 26 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-89,79-89 |
| Citation | 382 So.2d 1236 |
| Parties | Frank CARCAISE, Petitioner, v. The Honorable J. Robert DURDEN, as Circuit Court Judge, Florida SeventhJudicial Circuit, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
I. Paul Mandelkern and James M. Russ, Orlando, for petitioner.
Robert K. Good, Sp. Asst. State's Atty., Orlando, and Lawrence J. Nixon, Asst. State's Atty., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks our Writ of Prohibition in order to prevent his prosecution for violation of the laws proscribing unlawful sale of securities. Ch. 517, Fla.Stat. (1973). When the state seeks to prosecute after the statute of limitations has expired, the proper method to prevent the prosecution is by prohibition. Reino v. State, 352 So.2d 853 (Fla.1977).
Petitioner and others have been charged in an information filed May 18, 1977 alleging violations of the securities laws which violations, in various counts, are alleged to have occurred between June 1, 1973 and December 31, 1974.
The question on appeal is whether we should apply the general two year statute of limitations applicable to crimes generally or the special five year statute of limitations for securities violations. If the former applies, then we must prohibit the trial judge from allowing the prosecution to continue; if the latter is applicable, then the statute of limitations did not expire before this case began and the prosecution should continue.
The statute of limitation in effect at the time of the incident giving rise to the criminal charges is the one to be applied in determining the timeliness of the prosecution. State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So.2d 345 (Fla.1974). At the time petitioner is alleged to have committed the crimes, there were two statutes of limitations; one concerning non-capital crimes generally 1 and the other concerning securities violations particularly. 2 Generally speaking, a special statute of limitations which addresses itself to specific matters will take precedence over a general statute.
But petitioner urges that the generality cannot apply here, because in consideration of the history of legislative enactments of statutes of limitations, we must resolve an apparent conflict between the two relevant statutes in favor of the later one enacted. In 1951, Chapter 26970, Laws of Florida (1951), set the statute of limitations concerning securities violations at five years. This changed the existing criminal statute which provided a two year statute limitations for all crimes. Section 932.05, Fla.Stat. (1949). Petitioner next points out that in 1965 the five year limitation was reenacted and remained the applicable time period for prosecution until 1971 when Chapter 70-339, Laws of Florida, as amended Florida Statutes 932.465 (1973), became effective on January 1 and provided that all non-capital crimes must be prosecuted within two years after commission. We must decide whether section 932.465 also applies to securities violations, particularly the ones alleged here.
Petitioner urges, and we agree, the latest enactment takes precedence over prior enactments. State v. Board of Public Instruction, 113 So.2d 368 (Fla.1959). We also agree with the proposition that the legislature is presumed to know its own statutes and when it enacts a new statute, it is done with that knowledge. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Lee, 142 Fla. 68, 194 So. 305 (1940). However, we are also guided by the "general presumption that later statutes are passed with knowledge of prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dubin v. Dow Corning Corp.
...A special statute of limitations which addresses itself to specific matters takes precedence over a general statute. Carcaise v. Durden, 382 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1980). See also Cristich v. Allen Engineering, Inc., 458 So.2d 76, 78......
-
Baxley v. State, s. 79-36
...deprive will achieve a field of operation for each statute. The principle was best stated by Chief Judge Dauksch in Carcaise v. Durden, 382 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980): We also agree with the proposition that the legislature is presumed to know its own statutes and when it enacts a new s......
-
School Bd. of Seminole County v. GAF Corp.
...of actions herein for professional malpractice shall be limited to persons in privity with the professional.3 Carcaise v. Durden, 382 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Wetmore v. Brennan, 378 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).4 Because of our disposition of these appeals, we decline to consider the ......
-
Young v. State
...v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. , 42 Fla. L. Weekly D538, 214 So.3d 721, 2017 WL 838818 (Fla 1st DCA Mar. 3, 2017) (citing Carcaise v. Durden , 382 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) ). Second, "[t]here is a general presumption that later statutes are passed with knowledge of prior existing laws, and a ......
-
Which writ is which? A trial attorney's guide to Florida's extraordinary writs.
...Anderberg, 332 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976); State ex rel. Pope v. Joanas, 278 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1973). (33) See Carcaise v. Durden, 382 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (34) See City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977); Lake County Comm'rs v. State, 4 So. 795 (......