State v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 16 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--779,70--779 |
| Citation | 245 So.2d 293 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ismael FARCIA and Gustavo Triana, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Fine, Jacobson & Block, Theodore Klein, Phillip A. Hubbart, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellees were charged by information with the crime of second degree murder. They were tried together. Triana was convicted of second degree murder. Garcia was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser degree of homicide. The defendants appealed, and the judgments were affirmed. Subsequently, on motions of the defendants filed in the trial court under Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., the court entered an order setting aside the judgments and sentences and granting the defendants a new trial. That order was made more than two years after the date upon which the offenses were alleged to have been committed. Thereafter the state voluntarily moved for and obtained an order dismissing the initial information. Later the state filed a new information, in which Triana again was charged with second degreemurder and Garcia was charged with manslaughter.
On motion of the defendants the trial court dismissed the new information, on the ground that prosecution thereunder was barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations, § 932.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This appeal is by the state from that order.
After reciting in some detail the history of the case as above set out, the order appealed from provided as follows:
'7. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the second Information on the ground that prosecution on the crimes charged in the Information were barred by the Statute of Limitations, Fla.Stat. Sec. 932.05, F.S.A.
judgments of conviction and sentences under Rule 1.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure did not expressly toll the Statute of Limitations (Fla.Stat. Sec. 932.05, F.S.A.) period of two (2) years. Since the Information herein was filed nearly four (4) years from the date of the alleged crime, the prosecution of the crime charged in the Information is barred by Fla.Stat. Sec. 932.05, F.S.A.
'2. The original Information was voluntarily dismissed on its own motion and was not quashed because of a defect, omission or insufficiency in the contents or form of the Information, and consequently does not toll the Statute of Limitations under Fla.Stat. 932.05, F.S.A 'Ordered and Adjudged that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss are hereby granted and the Defendants are finally discharged from the cause.'
We approve the reasoning and conclusion of the trial court as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The cited statute, prescribing a two year limitation for instituting prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, also provides that where an information...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBride v. Pratt & Whitney
...State ex rel. Ball v. Goodman, 249 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Guerra, 245 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Garcia, 245 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). We have previously inferred that this rule applies in workers' compensation cases. Kinsey v. Skyline Corp., 395 So.2d 626, 6......
-
Geiger v. State, 87-133
...nolle prosses a charge, it cannot file a new information on the same charge after the statute of limitations has run. State v. Garcia, 245 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Guerra, 245 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Under the facts of this case, however, the state need not file new info......
-
Di Stefano v. Langston
...Judge White's comments are of course now subject to any application of our subsequent Speedy Trial Rule. 2 The Third District's State v. Garcia, 245 So.2d 293 (Fla.App.1971), is another case where the quashed information failed to ahve the necessary reference to an earlier commencement of t......
-
State ex rel. Ball v. Goodman, 71--477
...grant judgment in prohibition in favor of the relator, on authority of State v. Guerra, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 889; and State v. Garcia, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 293. We assume that in view of our holding in this matter it will not become necessary to issue a formal writ of prohibition It i......