Lane v. State, 48355
| Decision Date | 23 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48355,48355 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 976 |
| Parties | Karen LANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ron K. Zimmet, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jeanne Dawes Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by an information filed August 27, 1975, with uttering a worthless check on January 15, 1974, in the amount of $24.86, a misdemeanor in the second degree. Although the information was filed within the two-year period of the Statute of Limitations in existence at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed, appellant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that it was barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations, Section 775.15(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1975). Subsequent to the time the crime was alleged to have been committed, that section was enacted as part of the Florida Criminal Code, Chapter 775, Florida Statutes, and became effective on July 1, 1975. The trial court denied the motion and appellant was convicted.
In its order denying the motion the trial court stated, '. . . to interpret the statute in favor of the Defendant would be in violation of Article 10, paragraph 9 of the Florida Constitution, the effect of this provision being that the repeal or amendment of an existing criminal statute does not become effective as to offenses committed prior to the effective date of the repealing or amending law (See Raines v. State (42 Fla. 141), 28 So. 57; Shields v. State (78 Fla. 524), 83 So. 391; and Plummer v. State (83 Fla. 689), 92 So. 222). . . .'
By virtue of the above statement this Court has jurisdiction of this direct appeal 1 even though we dispose of the appeal on a non-constitutional ground. 2
The Florida Criminal Code provides for its applicability to antecedent offenses in Section 775.011, Florida Statutes (1975):
'(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the code does not apply to offenses committed prior to July 1, 1975, and prosecutions for such offenses shall be governed by the prior law. For the purposes of this section, an offense was committed prior to July 1, 1975, if any of the material elements of the offense occurred prior thereto.
'(3) In any case pending on or after October 1, 1975, involving an offense committed prior to such date, the provisions of the code involving any quasi-procedural matter shall govern, insofar as they are justly applicable, and the provisions of the code according a defense or mitigation or establishing a penalty shall apply only with the consent of the defendant.'
The issue here, then, is whether the application of a Statute of Limitations is a quasi-procedural matter, so as to permit the charge against appellant to be governed by the revised Statute of Limitations. In State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So.2d 345 (Fla.1974), this Court held that the application of a Statute of Limitations is a substantive matter. Consequently, this case falls within Section 775.011...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. State
...statute of limitations by pre-trial motion to raise it at trial, by post-trial motion, or for the first time on appeal. See Lane v. State, 337 So.2d 976 (Fla.1976) (statute of limitations substantive right); State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So.2d 345 (Fla.1974) (protection from prosec......
-
Reino v. State
...maintains that the only holding of the decision is that statutes of limitation are substantive rather than procedural. Lane v. State, 337 So.2d 976 (Fla.1976), is cited by the State as supportive of this position. The question in Lane was whether the application of a statute of limitations ......
-
Roberts v. Casey
...v. Wright, 403 So.2d 391 (Fla.1981); Art. V, § 2(a) and Art. II, § 3, Fla.Const.; S. R. v. State, 346 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1977); Lane v. State, 337 So.2d 976 (Fla.1976).7 § 95.11(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977).8 Love v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation, 362 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 3......
-
Tucker v. State
...of the alleged crime, it also expresses a substantive policy of the state against the bringing of stale prosecutions. See Lane v. State, 337 So.2d 976 (Fla.1976); State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So.2d 345 (Fla.1974). Normally an accused is not placed in the position of having the cho......