State of Florida v. Earvin Smith, 241 So. 3d 53

In 2011 Earvin Smith was arrested based on DNA linking him to a >20-year-old home invasion and sexual battery; he was tried and convicted of armed burglary (first-degree felony) and sexual battery, and possession of a firearm enhancement.
Smith was sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms with a 3-year mandatory minimum.
On direct appeal to the Third District, Smith for the first time argued the armed burglary prosecution was time-barred under the statute of limitations.
The Third District agreed that the burglary conviction was time-barred and reversed, then certified the preservation question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and addressed whether a statute-of-limitations defense must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for direct appeal.
The Court answered yes: a defendant must raise the limitations defense at trial to preserve it for direct appeal, though an ineffective-assistance claim remains available for counsel’s nonstrategic failure to raise the defense.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant must raise a statute-of-limitations defense in the trial court to preserve it for direct appeal	Smith argued the issue was fundamental error and could be raised for the first time on appeal	The limitations defense must be timely raised at trial; unpreserved issues are not subject to direct-appellate review absent fundamental error	Yes. A statute-of-limitations defense must be raised in the trial court to preserve it for direct appeal; it is not automatic fundamental error
Whether failure to raise the defense may be remedied in other ways	Smith implied appellate review should correct the time-bar error	Court noted ineffective-assistance of counsel claims remain available where counsel’s failure was nonstrategic or prejudice is apparent on the face of the record	The preferable remedy for unpreserved limitations claims is an ineffective-assistance claim unless deficiency and prejudice are evident on the record

Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (statute-of-limitations defense must be put in issue by defendant; government bears burden only if defense is pressed)
Crews v. State, 183 So.3d 329 (Fla. 2015) (compliance with statute of limitations is a factual matter the State must prove)
F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2003) (failure to prove an element is not generally fundamental error)
Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (unpreserved error may be reviewed only if fundamental)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (governs ineffective-assistance-of-counsel review)
Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285 (Fla. 1993) (statute of limitations is a defensive matter that must be raised at trial)