Court Opinion

ID: 9738157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:37.048144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.035858
License: Public Domain

LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(dissenting). By virtue of its holding, this court is sanctioning the use of a weapon which a defendant may now attempt to use in order to escape conviction. That weapon may be wielded where, as here, the defendant requests a jury instruction for a lesser included offense for which the statute of limitations has already run. Counsel for the defense and the prosecution here were aware of the running of the limitations period. The court was also aware of that fact. However, in accordance with our procedures, the members of the jury were not told that the limitations period had run. The defendant expressly refused to waive the right to assert the statute of *394limitations defense. Thereafter, the jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense and acquitted him of the felony charge, undoubtedly believing that a sanction commensurate with the misdemeanor offense would be imposed. Under the majority’s rule, in future cases similar to this one, a trial court will be precluded from entering a judgment of conviction due to lack of personal jurisdiction caused by the running of the statute of limitations. The practical result? The defendant escapes punishment.
The majority decision will undoubtedly provide impetus for a defendant to attempt to take advantage of this additional loophole in order to avoid punishment for crimes committed. Perhaps the legislature will recognize this danger and act accordingly. I would avoid this anomalous result by holding that the limitations statute is waivable when a defendant requests the jury instruction for the lesser included offense and thereafter asserts the statute of limitations defense.1
Accordingly, I dissent and would uphold the defendant’s conviction.

 See, Tucker v. State, 417 So. 2d 1006, 1014 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).