County Criminal Court:  CRIMINAL LAW – Statute of Limitations – trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss based on failure of State to prosecute second-degree misdemeanor theft charge within one year – five-year statute of limitations provided for by section 812.035(10) does not apply to misdemeanor offenses – doctrine of stare decisis compels appellate court to rely on its previous decision – Order affirmed.  State v. Townsend, No. 03-00052APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. March 3, 2004).

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

 

 

STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                    Appellant,

 

vs.                                                                   APPELLATE NO: CRC03-00052APANO

                                                                        LOWER COURT NO: CTC99-32475MMANO

 

BEVERLY J. TOWNSEND,

                                    Appellee.

                                                            /

 

Opinion issued March _______, 2004.

 

Appeal from a decision of the County Court.

Judge Sonny Im.

 

Theodora Christopher, Assistant State Attorney,

Counsel for Appellant.

 

Joy Goodyear, Assistant Public Defender,

Counsel for Appellee.

 

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

The State of Florida appeals from the county court’s dismissal of the second-degree misdemeanor theft charges filed against Townsend.  See § 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).  The lower tribunal dismissed the charges based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations.  See 775.15(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997).  On appeal, the State argues that the five-year statute of limitations provided for in section 812.035(10) supersedes the one-year statute of limitations provided for in section 775.15. 

A review of case law reflects that section 812.035(10) supersedes section 775.15 with respect to felony offenses.  See e.g., State v. Bare, 473 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).  Both parties to this appeal concede that there is no case law applying section 812.035(10) to misdemeanor offenses. 

This court has previously addressed this very issue.  In State v. Telesz, CRC02-21251CFANO (Fla. Pinellas Cty Ct. Sep. 12, 2003), this court reasoned that section 812.035(10) does not apply to misdemeanor offenses.  This court’s decision in Telesz was based in part on prior decisions from other circuit courts. 

Although the State has since appealed this court’s decision in Telesz to the Second District Court of Appeal (2D03-4609), and although that court appears to be reviewing the issue under its certiorari jurisdiction, the doctrine of stare decisis compels us to rely on our previous decision.  Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256, 1267 (Fla. 1993 (J. Shaw, dissenting) (“The doctrine of stare decisis holds simply that a court when deciding a particular legal issue will pay due deference to its own past decisions on the same point of law. This is a judge-made rule created to assist courts in rendering decisions by making the work of judges easier, fostering stability in the law, and promoting public respect for the law as an objective, impersonal set of principles.”).

Affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED this ______ day of March, 2004. 

 

 

  


                                                                           DAVID A. DEMERS, Circuit Judge

 

 

  


                                                                           ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR., Circuit Judge

 

 

  


                                                                           IRENE SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge