Guzman v. State
211 So. 3d 204
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Crime occurred April 15, 2001: victim (age 12) reported rape and choking; initially could not identify perpetrator.
- Victim identified Guzman from a photo lineup in 2004; State filed an information on April 22, 2004 charging attempted first-degree murder (Count 1), lewd and lascivious battery (12–16) (Count 2), and sexual battery (Count 3).
- On May 4, 2010 the State filed an amended information: attempted felony murder (Count 1), lewd and lascivious battery (Count 2), and aggravated battery with great bodily harm (Count 3).
- Trial counsel did not raise a statute-of-limitations defense; Guzman was convicted and sentenced; he appealed raising the SOL issue for the first time.
- Court applied the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the offense (2001) and concluded Counts 1 and 3 in the 2010 amended information and Count 2 in the 2004 information were time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions are barred by the statute of limitations | State argued prosecutions were timely or that amended information related back to earlier filing | Guzman argued the applicable 2001 SOL had expired before the informations/amendment were filed | Court held the offenses were time-barred under the 2001 statute of limitations and vacated convictions |
| Whether the 2010 amendment to Count 1 (attempted felony murder) related back to 2004 charge | State implicitly relied on continuation/relating-back principle | Guzman argued the 2004 information charged a non-existent offense (attempted felony murder was not a crime in light of Gray), so the 2010 charge was a new offense beyond SOL | Court held the 2004 pleading charged a non-existent crime; the 2010 Count 1 was a new charge subject to its own SOL and was time-barred |
| Whether Count 3 (aggravated battery GBH) in 2010 related back to the 2004 sexual-battery charge | State argued amended count was continuation or correction | Guzman argued the 2010 count alleged a new and different offense and thus was barred | Court held Count 3 was a wholly new charge with different elements and was barred by the 2001 SOL |
| Whether SOL may be raised for first time on direct appeal | State implicitly took position that failure to raise it waives the defense | Guzman raised SOL on direct appeal as fundamental error | Court followed precedent allowing raising SOL on direct appeal as fundamental error (subject to possible review by Fla. Supreme Court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Key v. State, 990 So.2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (allows raising statute-of-limitations on direct appeal as fundamental error)
- Rubin v. State, 390 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1980) (continuation/relating-back principle for charging documents)
- State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995) (held attempted felony murder is not a recognized offense)
- Torgerson v. State, 964 So.2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (statute of limitations applicable is the one in effect when the offense occurred)
- M.F. v. State, 583 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1991) (amendment after SOL may correct non-substantive errors but cannot change the substantive charge)
- Labrador v. State, 13 So.3d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (amended charging document alleging a new distinct crime must satisfy the SOL)