Rubin v. State

Decision Date13 February 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-1041,78-1041
Citation368 So.2d 69
PartiesMurray RUBIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Mark King Leban, Miami, Mechanic & Goldstein, North Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Murray Rubin appeals his conviction (non-jury) on charges of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny. He was charged by information with grand larceny, conspiracy, and several counts of forging and uttering uniform air bills.

The first information, filed on June 1, 1977, alleged that the offenses occurred between November 30, 1975 and June 14, 1975. The State filed a second information in open court on November 3, 1977, without objection from defense counsel and with court approval. Later, the defendant moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that it had not been filed within the two-year Statute of Limitations and his motion was denied.

The charges alleged that Rubin, Vice President of Riverside Memorial Chapel, was operating a kickback scheme with a George Dawson who worked for a company that provided air trays and livery service for transporting bodies by plane. Dawson entered a nolo plea to similar charges and turned State's evidence. At trial, he testified that he made out false air bills with information given to him by Rubin, inflating the shipment costs. After Riverside paid the bill, Dawson claimed that he delivered the excess money to Rubin either in person or through a jointly held safe deposit box.

During trial, the court granted Rubin a judgment of acquittal on the forgery and uttering charges. The trial court found Rubin guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny, sentencing him to one year probation, sixty days to be served in jail, and a $500.00 fine. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail on the petit larceny conviction, to run concurrently with the sentence on the conspiracy conviction. This appeal followed.

The appellant contends that the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the two-year Statute of Limitations, in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, was applicable and not the three-year statute at the time of the filing of the last information.

We disagree. Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So. 681 (1893); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, 88 So.2d 120 (Fla.1956); Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U.S. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798). Here the time was extended. Corbett v. General Engineering & Machinery Company, 160 Fla. 879, 37 So.2d 161 (1948); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, supra; Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The rule may be different when the Statute of Limitations is shortened, but that is not the case before us. Foley v. Morris, 339 So.2d 215 (Fla.1976). We have examined the count of the information alleging the conspiracy and do not find it vague under the test set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in Goldberg v. State, 351 So.2d 332 (Fla.1977). However, we think the trial judge was correct in refusing to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ray v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1981
    ...the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection.5 Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978).6 Id.; Rubin v. State, 368 So.2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).7 In re Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), No. 58,799 (Fla. April 16, 1981), contains, as an appendix, a schedule of le......
  • Durcan v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 1980
    ...So.2d 731 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Pegues v. State, 361 So.2d 433 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); Rubin v. State, 368 So.2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Further, the trial court, in denying the Rule 1 motion, found that he had voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial at......
  • Wimpey v. Sanchez, 79-1621
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1980
    ...applies. Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). See also Rubin v. State, 368 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (1974), effective January 1, 1975, and Section 95.11(6), Florida Statutes (1973), also set ......
  • Com. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1989
    ...318 (1984); State v. Hodgson, 44 Wash.App. 592, 722 P.2d 1336 (1986); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.App.1986); Rubin v. State, 368 So.2d 69 (Fla.App.1979). See also, Commonwealth v. Guimento, 341 Pa.Superior Ct. 95, 491 A.2d 166 (1985); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 236 Pa.Superior Ct. 13......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT