Bridenthal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bridenthal v. State

453 So. 2d 437, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 1984

DocketNo. 83-577

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 453 So. 2d 437 (Bridenthal v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridenthal v. State, 453 So. 2d 437, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13831 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions on seven counts of grand larceny, eleven counts of grand theft, and three counts of common law cheat. We find no merit in any of the issues raised by the defendant.

However, in the separate appeals of the defendant’s codefendants, this court has issued an opinion reversing the code-fendants’ convictions on the seven larceny counts on the ground that the larceny counts are barred by the statute of limitations. Maguire v. State, 453 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The statute of limitations is a jurisdictional issue and this court is not foreclosed from considering that issue notwithstanding that the issue was not raised at the trial or appellate level. Mead v. State, 101 So.2d 373 (Fla.1958).

Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 5 and 18 through 20 in case no. 81-499 as being barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the defendant’s convictions in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DANAHY, Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions on seven counts of grand larceny, eleven counts of grand theft, and three counts of common law cheat. We find no merit in any of the issues raised by the defendant.

However, in the separate appeals of the defendant’s codefendants, this court has issued an opinion reversing the code-fendants’ convictions on the seven larceny counts on the ground that the larceny counts are barred by the statute of limitations. Maguire v. State, 453 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The statute of limitations is a jurisdictional issue and this court is not foreclosed from considering that issue notwithstanding that the issue was not raised at the trial or appellate level. Mead v. State, 101 So.2d 373 (Fla.1958).

Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 5 and 18 through 20 in case no. 81-499 as being barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the defendant’s convictions in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 So. 2d 437, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridenthal-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack