MURRAY RUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Murray Rubin appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit grand larceny and petit larceny, arguing that the second information was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that when a statute of limitations is extended (not shortened), the longer period applies, and that Rubin's motion to dismiss was untimely.
The motion to dismiss was properly denied because when a statute of limitations is extended (not shortened), the longer period applies. Additionally, the motion was untimely, and the trial court correctly refused to entertain it, which was within its discretion.
[1] A motion to dismiss an information on statute of limitations grounds may be denied as untimely if not filed within the court's discretion.
[2] A defendant may waive a fundamental constitutional right, such as the statute of limitations, by failing to raise it in a timely manner.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We disagree. Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So. 681 (1893); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, 88 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1956); Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U.S. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798). Here the time was extended.”
The court's holding that the extended statute of limitations applies, not the shorter statute in effect at the time of the crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRubin was Vice President of Riverside Memorial Chapel and allegedly operated a kickback scheme with George Dawson, who worked for a company providing …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Murray Rubin appeals his conviction (non-jury) on charges of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny. He was charged by information with grand larceny, conspiracy, and several counts of forging and uttering uniform air bills.
The first information, filed on June 1, 1977, alleged that the offenses occurred between November 30, 1975 and June 14, 1975. The State filed a second information in open court on November 3, 1977, without objection from defense counsel and with court approval. Later, the defendant moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that it had not been filed within the two-year Statute of Limitations and his motion was denied.
The charges alleged that Rubin, Vice President of Riverside Memorial Chapel, was operating a kickback scheme with a George Dawson who worked for a company that provided air trays and livery service for transporting bodies by plane. Dawson entered a nolo plea to similar charges and turned State’s evidence. At trial, he testified that he made out false air bills with information given to him by Rubin, inflating the shipment costs. After Riverside paid the bill, Dawson claimed that he delivered the excess money to Rubin either in person or through a jointly held safe deposit box.
During trial, the court granted Rubin a judgment of acquittal on the forgery and uttering charges. The trial court found Rubin guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny; and petit larceny, sentencing him to one year probation, sixty days to be served in jail, and a $500.00 fine. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail on the petit larceny conviction, to run concurrently with the sentence on the conspiracy conviction. This appeal followed.
The appellant contends that the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the two-year Statute of Limitations, in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, was applicable and not the three-year statute at the time of the filing of the last information.
We disagree. Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So. 681 (1893); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, 88 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1956); Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U.S. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798). Here the time was extended. Corbett v. General Engineering & Machinery Company, 160 Fla. 879, 37 So. 2d 161 (1948); Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, supra; Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The rule may be different when the Statute of Limitations is shortened, but that is not the case before us. Foley v. Morris, 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1976). We have examined the count of the information alleging the conspiracy and do not find it vague under the test set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in Goldberg v. State, 351 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1977). However, we think the trial judge was correct in refusing to entertain the motion, because it was untimely. This certainly was within his discretion. Counsel urges that a fundamental constitutional right cannot be waived; with this we do not agree. Jones v. State, 248 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Clark v. State, 336 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pegues v. State, 361 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The other point, going to the sufficiency of the evidence, we find to be without merit. Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Alleman v. State, 279 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the adjudication of guilt and sentences thereon be and they are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)…give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection. . Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978). . Id.; Rubin v. State, 368 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). . In re Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), No. 58,799 (Fla. April 16, 1981), contains, as an appendix, a schedule of lesser included offenses. This schedule is presumptively correct and complete, and the Court expects t…
-
Murray Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980)…ALDERMAN, Justice. We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in [*323] Rubin v. State, 368 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), which conflicts with Lane v. State, 337 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1976), and State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1974). The two issues to be decided are: (1) Does the two-year statute of limitations in effect at the ti…
-
Jordan v. State, 419 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…tion, violation resulting from the trial court’s denial of his mid-trial continuance, was never brought to the attention of the trial judge. Absent fundamental error, even a constitutional right may be waived if not timely presented. Rubin v. State, 368 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979); Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981). This alleged error was not one of fundamental dimension in view of the fact, previously noted, that appellant took the stand and explained that he failed to appear for his first trial bec…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Calder et Wife, 3 Dall. 386 (U.S. 1798)
- Foley v. George A. Morris, M.D., 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1976)
- Clark v. State, 336 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Corbett v. Gen. Eng'g & Mach. Co. & Glens Falls Indem. Co., 160 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1948)
- Dalton Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Walter Denson & SON & Va. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 88 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1956)
- Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1893)
- Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Mrs. Stanley (Joyce) Goldberg v. State, 351 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1977)