Carbajal v. State
75 So. 3d 258
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Carbajal was charged in 2001 by information filed by the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor (OSP) for narcotics offenses in Lee County.
- Carbajal pleaded nolo contendere in 2002 and was sentenced to 155 months in prison; he did not appeal.
- In 2007, Carbajal moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 asserting lack of OSP jurisdiction.
- The circuit court deemed the motion timely but denied relief on the merits; the Second District affirmed, holding the motion untimely under 3.850.
- The Second District certified conflict with several cases addressing whether 3.850’s two-year limit applies to OSP-jurisdiction challenges and noted OSP non-divestiture of circuit court jurisdiction.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that OSP lack of jurisdiction does not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction, and Carbajal’s 3.850 claim was untimely; the Court disapproved Luger, Winter, Small, Brown, and Zanger to the extent they held otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3.850 time limits apply to OSP jurisdiction claims | Carbajal argues 3.850 limits should not bar his jurisdiction claim | State argues the two-year limit applies and bars the claim | Yes; 3.850 time limits apply and bar the claim |
| Whether OSP lack of jurisdiction divests circuit court jurisdiction | Carbajal asserts lack of OSP jurisdiction divests circuit court | State contends OSP jurisdiction does not affect circuit court jurisdiction | No; OSP lack does not divest circuit court jurisdiction |
| Whether a conviction is void ab initio when the information is signed by an unauthorized prosecutor | Carbajal argues the information signed by an unauthorized officer voids conviction | State asserts conviction may be voidable but not void ab initio | Conviction not void ab initio; voidable, not void, due to signing issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Luger v. State, 983 So.2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (OSP jurisdiction issue relates to trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Winter v. State, 781 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (judgment validity raised by OSP jurisdiction concerns)
- Small v. State, 56 So.3d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (information defects regarding OSP jurisdiction discussed)
- Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (two-year limit and jurisdictional claims under 3.850 discussed)
- Zanger v. State, 548 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (information with multiple circuits and OSP filing discussed)
- Gunn v. State, 947 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (conflict on 3.850 timing and OSP jurisdiction)
- Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (jurisdictional claims and 3.850 timing considerations)
- Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (jurisdictional challenges to OSP discussed)
- Ex parte Reed, 101 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1931) (historical context on jurisdiction and indictments)
- Gerlaugh v. Florida Parole Commission, 139 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1962) (unauthorized signing does not void conviction)
- Young v. State, 97 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1929) (information signed by improper officer may be allowed if no objection)