State v. Ramos
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2008
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v.
TELVIS RAMOS,
Appellee.
No. 4D06-4629
[ March 12, 2008 ]
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION
HAZOURI, J.
We grant appellant’s motion for clarification/correction, withdraw our
prior opinion, and substitute the following in its place.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting Telvis
Ramos’s motion to dismiss the information charging her with third
degree grand theft on the ground that her prosecution was barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The trial court erroneously granted the
motion. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Ramos was apprehended and arrested on the day the crime was
committed, April 16, 1997. The state filed the information on May 6,
1997. Ramos was given notice of the date of her arraignment. At her
arraignment on May 29, 1997, Ramos entered a plea of not guilty and
was also declared indigent and appointed counsel. The state filed its
discovery submission which it sent to her public defender on June 13,
1997. On July 10, 1997, Ramos did not appear at the pretrial hearing
and the trial court issued a capias. The capias was executed when
Ramos was arrested on July 28, 2006.
On November 9, 2006, Ramos filed a motion to dismiss arguing that,
because the statute of limitations expired prior to commencement of
prosecution, the information should be dismissed.
After hearing
argument as well as evidence regarding Ramos’s presence in Broward
County during the nine-year time frame between the issuance of the
capias and Ramos’s arrest, the trial court granted Ramos’s motion,
reasoning that the state had failed to present evidence that it was
diligent in its efforts to serve the capias.
Section 812.035(10), Florida Statutes (1995), is the statute of
limitations applicable to a charge of grand theft. That section provides
that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil
action or proceeding under ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 812.081 may be
commenced at any time within 5 years after the cause of action
accrues. . . .”
Section 775.15(5) states that “[a] prosecution is
commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided
the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or
information is executed without unreasonable delay.” (Emphasis added.)
After the information was filed, Ramos received “other process” in the
form of the notice to appear at the arraignment. She was present at the
arraignment and entered her plea of not guilty. Because Ramos received
this other process within a month of the filing of the information, there
was no delay and the prosecution was commenced well within five years
of the date of the offense. See Young v. State, 784 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2001) (after filing of information, notice to appear at arraignment
and defense filing of waiver of formal arraignment and entry of plea was
sufficient “other process” under section 775.15(5) to commence
prosecution): see also Starling v. State, 799 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA
2001) (notice of pretrial conference and trial dates to defense counsel
after information filed was sufficient “other process”); State v. Martinez,
790 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (defendant’s attendance at
arraignment after the information was filed was sufficient “other process”
to commence prosecution).
Ramos’s prosecution was commenced well within the five-year statute
of limitations period. We reverse the order granting Ramos’s motion to
dismiss and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
SHAHOOD, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Cheryl J. Alemán, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-7496
CF10A.
-2-
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Y.
McIntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Emily Ross-Booker, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
