Cheffer v. Judge, Div. 's', 15th Judicial Circuit, 92-2974
| Decision Date | 24 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2974,92-2974 |
| Citation | 614 So.2d 632 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D566 Robert CHEFFER and Gisela Cheffer, Petitioners, v. JUDGE, DIVISION 'S', 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donnie Murrell of Law Office of L.D. Murrell and J. Ralph Mabie of Mabie & Mabie, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Petitioners seek to prohibit their further prosecution for violation of section 895.05(3), Florida Statutes (1991), known as Florida RICO. They claim that the second amended information filed against them is barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied their motion to dismiss, holding that the amended information was a continuation of the prior information and not an abandonment of it, as the only crime charged was a single count of racketeering. We agree and deny the petition.
Petitioners were first charged by a one count information accusing them of RICO violations, with four predicate acts alleged of violations of Chapter 893 (regarding drug offenses) taking place from May 1, 1985, through March 18, 1986. The information was filed on March 4, 1991. An amended information was filed adding a codefendant on May 15, 1991. A second amended information was filed on July 3, 1991, this time adding a fifth predicate act to the count alleging racketeering. The new predicate act alleged that between January 1, 1980, and January 1, 1986, petitioners engaged in a conspiracy to traffic in marijuana.
Petitioners challenged the last amendment to the information by claiming that it was not a continuation of the first. Therefore, it was in essence a new prosecution and thus filed beyond the five year racketeering statute of limitations. Sec. 895.05(10), Fla.Stat. (1990). They also claimed that the RICO prosecution could not be based on predicate acts barred from prosecution by the statute of limitations. Before the motion was heard, the state filed a third amended information using the identical language from the second but affirmatively stating that it was a continuation of the prosecution commenced on March 4, 1991. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
In each of the amendments to the original information in this case, the language of the original information was continued. The second amended information added an additional predicate act, and the third information included express linking language. Under such circumstances, we agree with the trial court's reliance on Rubin v. State, 390 So.2d 322 (Fla.1980). The inclusion of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State
...is barred by the statute of limitations may challenge the trial court's jurisdiction to go forward. Cheffer v. Judge, Division "S", 15th Judicial Circuit, 614 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We have The proceedings against Neal stemmed from her alleged involvement in a motor vehicle accident......
-
Matos v. State
...method to bring this type of challenge. Pontius v. State, 932 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Cheffer v. Judge, Div. `S', 15th Judicial Circuit, 614 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). We grant the petition and direct the dismissal of the charges. This is not a case like those relied on b......
-
Pontius v. State
...of limitations on the offense has run. Prohibition is a proper method to bring this type of challenge. Cheffer v. Judge, Div. `S', 15th Judicial Circuit, 614 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Because the lower court refused to consider his challenge, we remand for further The Information charg......
-
State v. Traylor
...which might have otherwise been untimely. The same result has been reached in the RICO context. See Cheffer v. Judge, Div. ‘S,’ 15th Judicial Cir., 614 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding RICO prosecution based on predicate acts of trafficking illegal drugs not barred by statute of ......