New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
In this case, the Appellant raised on appeal his conviction on charges of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny. He was initially charged by information with grand larceny, conspiracy, and several counts of forging and uttering uniform air bills.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first information, filed on June 1, 1977, alleged that the offenses occurred between November 30, 1975 and June 14, 1975. The State filed a second information in open court on November 3, 1977, without objection from the defense counsel and with court approval. Thereafter, the appellant moved to dismiss the information on the ground that it had not been filed within the two-year Statute of Limitations. His motion was denied.
The informations alleged that Appellant was operating a kickback scheme with another person who worked for a company that provided air trays and livery service for transporting bodies by plane. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accomplice entered a nolo plea to similar charges and turned State’s evidence. During the trial, he testified that he made out false air bills with information given to him by Appellant, inflating the shipment costs. After the company paid the bill, the accomplice claimed that he delivered the excess money to appellant either in person or through a jointly held safety deposit box.
During trial, the court granted Appellant a judgment of acquittal on the forgery and uttering charges. However, The trial court found Appellant guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny, sentencing him to one year probation, sixty days to be served in jail, and a $500.00 fine. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he was sentenced to sixty days in jail on the petit larceny conviction, to run concurrently with the sentence on the conspiracy conviction.
Thereafter, the appellant filed this appeal.
The appellant alleged that the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the two-year Statute of Limitations, in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, was applicable and not the three-year statute at the time of the filing of the
last information.
Upon a thorough review of the records of the case, the court did not subscribe to appellant’s contention. The basis for the court’s decision is enunciated in the cases of Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So. 681 (1893); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, 88 So.2d 120 (Fla.1956); Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U.S. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), wherein the time of the filing of the last information was extended. This doctrine was also reiterated in the cases of Corbett v. General Engineering & Machinery Company, 160 Fla. 879, 37 So.2d 161 (1948); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, supra; Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The rule may be different when the Statute of Limitations is shortened, but that is not the issue in this case. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court examined the count of the information alleging the conspiracy and do not find it vague under the test set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in Goldberg v. State, 351 So.2d 332 (Fla.1977). However, the court agreed that the trial judge was correct in refusing to entertain the motion, because it was untimely. This issue was certainly within his discretion. Appellant’s counsel further argued that a fundamental constitutional right cannot be waived; to which this court did not agree.
The other point raised by the appellant, which goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, is also without merit. Wetherington v. State, 263 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Alleman v. State, 279 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The court affirmed the adjudication of guilt and sentences thereon.
Stephen Bilkis and Associates with its New York Petit Larceny Lawyers can assist you in arguing your case. It has convenient offices located within New York Metropolitan area including Corona New York.