ROBERT DAVID DOMBERG, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JOHN W. PEACH, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that an amended indictment, alleging the same crime in identical language as the original indictment, relates back to the date of the original indictment for statute of limitations purposes.
Robert David Domberg, Jr. was indicted for kidnapping on March 2, 1983, with the offense alleged to have occurred on March 14, 1979. An amended indict…
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 Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Robert David Domberg, Jr. petitions this court for a writ of prohibition to bar criminal prosecution for kidnapping, asserting that the statute of limitations had expired.
By indictment dated March 2, 1983, it was alleged in Count III that Domberg had committed the offense of kidnapping on March 14, 1979. An “amended indictment” was returned on April 2, 1983, alleging verbatim the same kidnapping, under the same count. Amendments to the indictment entailed the addition of another de fendant on Counts I, II and IV. No new charges were made against Domberg.
Section 775.15(2), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that prosecution be commenced within four years. Since the amended indictment was returned more than four years from the date of the alleged kidnapping, we must determine if the amended indictment was sufficiently linked to the first indictment so as to show a continuation of the same prosecution. Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla.1958).
Since the crime at issue here was alleged in the two indictments in identical language, the notation “amended indictment” was sufficient linkage to indicate that the State was pursuing the same prosecution against Domberg begun by the initial indictment. See Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, Domberg’s petition for writ of prohibition is DENIED and the previously issued order to show cause is DISCHARGED.
MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clifton, 905 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e same charges, and is filed in the same case as the original information, may sufficiently link the subsequently-filed amended information to the original information and constitute a continuation of the prosecution. Domberg v. State ex rel. Peach, 443 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984); Harris; see also Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1980).…
-
State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…(3d Cir.1981); United States v. Grady, 544 F. 2d 598 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. Wilsey, 458 F. 2d 11 (9th Cir. 1972) (changing alleged date of offense); see also Rubin, supra; DiStefano v. Langston, 274 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1973); Domberg v. State, 443 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Harris v. State, 229 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied 237 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1970); State v. Adjmi, 170 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). In this case, we do not believe that the substitution of the name of the true victi…
-
State v. Clifton, 895 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…me charges, and is filed in the same case as the original information, may sufficiently link the subsequently-filed amended information to the original informa- . tion and constitute a continuation of the prosecution. Domberg v. State ex rel. Peach, 443 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1984); Hams; see also Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1980).…
Authorities Cited
- Murray Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980)
- Mead v. State, 101 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1958)