State v. Foxworth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Foxworth

757 So. 2d 1270, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6227, 2000 WL 668899

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2806

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 757 So. 2d 1270 (State v. Foxworth) 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

State v. Foxworth, 757 So. 2d 1270, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6227, 2000 WL 668899 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

DELL, J.

On September 26, 1996, the state of Florida charged Wesley Foxworth by information with grand theft of a motor vehicle, a third degree felony. The information alleged that the crime occurred on February 26, 1996. The state, however, did not execute the capias until May 3, 1999, when appellee surrendered to Florida authorities after his arrest in South Dakota on an unrelated charge.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the information. He argued that his prosecution was barred by a three-year statute of limitations under section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court concluded that the state failed to execute the capias without unreasonable delay and dismissed the information.

The state argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the information because the statute of limitations may be extended up to three years under section 775.15(6), if appellee was continuously absent from the state. However, the state did not make this argument at the trial court and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.

Moreover, the state failed to present competent evidence that appellee was continuously absent from the state or “put forth any plausible excuses” for its delay in serving the arrest warrant. See State v. Brugman, 588 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that counsel’s ünsworn statements on a motion to dismiss were not competent substantial evidence absent a stipulation); see also Neal v. State, 697 So.2d 903, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations when the state failed to provide “any evidence to explain or excuse its delay in serving the arrest warrant”).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

DELL, J.

On September 26, 1996, the state of Florida charged Wesley Foxworth by information with grand theft of a motor vehicle, a third degree felony. The information alleged that the crime occurred on February 26, 1996. The state, however, did not execute the capias until May 3, 1999, when appellee surrendered to Florida authorities after his arrest in South Dakota on an unrelated charge.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the information. He argued that his prosecution was barred by a three-year statute of limitations under section 775.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court concluded that the state failed to execute the capias without unreasonable delay and dismissed the information.

The state argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the information because the statute of limitations may be extended up to three years under section 775.15(6), if appellee was continuously absent from the state. However, the state did not make this argument at the trial court and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.

Moreover, the state failed to present competent evidence that appellee was continuously absent from the state or “put forth any plausible excuses” for its delay in serving the arrest warrant. See State v. Brugman, 588 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that counsel’s ünsworn statements on a motion to dismiss were not competent substantial evidence absent a stipulation); see also Neal v. State, 697 So.2d 903, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations when the state failed to provide “any evidence to explain or excuse its delay in serving the arrest warrant”).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 So. 2d 1270, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6227, 2000 WL 668899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foxworth-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack