Doyle v. State, 1D01-482.
| Decision Date | 19 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D01-482.,1D01-482. |
| Citation | 783 So.2d 295 |
| Parties | Shannon DOYLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William J. Sheppard and D. Gray Thomas of Sheppard, White & Thomas, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.
Shannon Doyle petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that prosecution on criminal charges would violate his constitutional right of speedy trial and the applicable statute of limitations. We deny the petition.
Doyle was arrested in 1993 on a charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16. No information was filed, however, and Doyle was placed in the pretrial intervention program (PTI). He remained in the program until 1999 but did not successfully complete it and an information was filed against him at that time. He executed documents which waived his rights to counsel and to speedy trial and the protections afforded by the statute of limitations in 1993, and others which later extended such waivers. It is undisputed, however, that the waivers of counsel were not witnessed by two persons attesting to the voluntariness thereof and they therefore did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(4). Petitioner argues that since the waivers of counsel were not in compliance with the rule, the waivers of speedy trial and the statute of limitations were also invalid. Section 948.08(2), Florida Statutes, specifically requires consultation with counsel prior to placement in the PTI program and waiver of the right of speedy trial and the statute of limitations.
Although petitioner made a claim of violation of speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 in the trial court, it was denied for failure to file a notice of expiration of speedy trial time pursuant to Rule 3.191(p)(2), and he does not pursue the argument in this court. Instead, he relies on the constitutional right to speedy trial and the statute of limitations. As for the former, petitioner must show, among other things, existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay. Seymour v. State, 738 So.2d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). With regard to the statute of limitations, it may be waived in a criminal prosecution. Tucker v. State, 459 So.2d 306 (Fla.1984). The validity of Doyle's waivers of counsel in this case turns on the question of the effect of noncompliance with Rule 3.111(d)(4). This, too, requires an examination of the prejudice to Doyle created by the failure to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...attempted to negotiate a resolution in which defendant would enter into a pretrial diversion program. See, e.g. , Doyle v. State , 783 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ; Lowe v. State , 501 So.2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ; United States v. Wild , 551 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (holding defendant ......
-
FARRAR v. State of Fla.
...however, we find no merit in them. Statutes of limitations on crimes are not jurisdictional, and may be waived. E.g., Doyle v. State, 783 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 796 So.2d 536 (Fla.2001). In entering his 2008 pleas, Farrar expressly waived any statute of limitations defense i......
-
Morris v. State, 5D04-3688.
...statutes of limitation on crimes are not jurisdictional and the defendant may waive the statute of limitations defense. Doyle v. State, 783 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 796 So.2d 536 (Fla.2001); Mercer v. State, 654 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lowe v. State, 501 So.2d 79 (Fla.......
-
Jones v. State, 1D00-2906.
...an evidentiary proceeding before the trial court. As a result, this matter is not properly before us in a prohibition proceeding. Doyle v. State, 783 So.2d 295 (Fla.lst DCA 2001); McKinney v. Yawn, 625 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We therefore deny the petition, but without prejudice to p......