Brian Michael Robinson v. State of Florida
205 So. 3d 584
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Robinson was charged in 2012 with second- and third-degree sexual offenses that occurred in 2007–2008; the relevant statutes of limitations would have run in 2010–2011 absent tolling.
- An arrest warrant issued in January 2009; Robinson was in the U.S. Army on active duty and stationed outside Florida from May 2008 through May 2012 (including deployment to Afghanistan), though his address of record remained his parents’ Florida home.
- Law enforcement did not contact Robinson or his parents, or visit his Florida address, between January 2009 and June 2012; investigators located him out-of-state via the U.S. Marshals and he returned and surrendered in June 2012.
- The State argued tolling under section 775.15(5) because Robinson was continuously absent from Florida; Robinson argued tolling required the State to show it conducted a diligent search or that his absence hindered prosecution.
- The trial court denied dismissal; Robinson reserved a dispositive appeal, pled no contest, and appealed the tolling ruling to the First District, which affirmed; the Florida Supreme Court granted review on conflict with Second District decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuous out-of-state absence tolls the limitations period under §775.15(5) absent proof the absence hindered prosecution or that the State conducted a diligent search | Tolling should not apply unless the State shows it diligently searched for defendant or that absence delayed prosecution | §775.15(5) tolls the period for any time the defendant is continuously absent; no proof of diligent search or prejudice required | The Court held tolling applies when the State proves continuous absence; no statutory requirement to prove diligent search or that absence hindered prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 153 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming tolling where defendant was continuously absent)
- Netherly v. State, 804 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (held absence alone insufficient; State must show absence delayed prosecution)
- State v. Perez, 72 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (refused to apply tolling where court found State did not act diligently to locate defendant)
- Pearson v. State, 867 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (construed §775.15(5) to toll for continuous absence without requiring diligent search)
- McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)