Sherley v. State, 88-413

Decision Date16 February 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-413,88-413
Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 474,538 So.2d 148
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 474 Jerry SHERLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Sherley appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss the state's information charging him with aggravated battery. He claims that the three year statute of limitations under section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) had expired prior to the state's commencement of prosecution. We agree and reverse.

On August 31, 1979, Sherley shot Priscilla Shepherd in the stomach with a .22 caliber pistol after she interfered in a fight between Sherley and his wife. On October 17, 1979, the state filed an information and the trial court issued a capias for his arrest. On December 20, 1979, the sheriff's department attempted to serve the capias upon Sherley at his Florida residence, but was unable to do so. The officers' remarks on the attempted service indicate Sherley had moved without leaving a forwarding address. This was the only attempt at service of the capias.

In 1987, Sherley was stopped for driving without a license in Illinois. The aggravated battery charge was discovered and Sherley was extradited to Florida. After the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss, he pled nolo contendere to the charge, expressly reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The trial court accepted his plea and placed Sherley on probation.

Section 775.15(2)(b) provides that prosecution for the second degree felony of aggravated battery must be commenced within three years after it was committed. Subsections (5) and (6) discuss when a prosecution is commenced and when the statute of limitations is tolled. They state:

(5) A prosecution is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining what is reasonable, inability to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant's absence from the state shall be considered. If, however, an indictment or information has been filed within the time period prescribed in this section and the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside because of a defect in its content or its form after the time period has elapsed, the time for commencing prosecution shall be extended three months from the time the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside.

(6) The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years.

§ 775.15(5) and (6), Fla.Stat. (1987).

In State v. Fields, 505 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court construed the word "executed" in subsection 5 to mean "service upon the defendant." See also, Gunn v. State, 519 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Thus, in the instant case, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lucas v. State, 98-1829
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1998
    ...to establish a diligent search for defendant. Wright v. State, 600 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Bragenzer; Sherley v. State, 538 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). There is no allegation in the record that Lucas was absent from the state or had no ascertainable residence or place of employme......
  • State v. Picklesimer, 91-1977
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 16, 1992
    ...in concluding that seven years is the maximum allowable limitation under the statute. Based upon a careful reading of Sherley v. State, 538 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA1989), Walker v. State, 543 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA1989) and Constantine v. State, 566 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2nd DCA1990), the Court T......
  • Wright v. State, 91-2079
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1992
    ...in executing capias unreasonable where state made only single attempt of service at defendant's mother's residence); Sherley v. State, 538 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (eight-year delay in executing capias unreasonable where state made only single attempt of service at defendant's residenc......
  • Walker v. State, 88-842
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1989
    ...not constitute a diligent search and therefore the ten year delay in the execution of the capias is unreasonable. See Sherley v. State, 538 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Gunn v. State, 519 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Colvin v. State, 541 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fleming v......
  • 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