jimenez1440
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida but is federal case.
It is a question I have not been able to have answered.
It is one of the issues that underlie an appeal brief that is due soon and I do not know how to proceed.
___________________________________________________________
On 04 October 2016 in DE 504 (docket entry) in the District Court,
I filed a request for information to the clerk of the court - he docketed it but never responded.
The information I repeat here is also stated in that docket entry.
The question is procedural and whether or not the timely procedure of the statute of limitations barring the proceedings is plain error and or barred the proceedings entirely.
History:
1
A plea agreement was signed by the ausa, atty and defendant on June 13 -2016.(filed on 06/19/15 as DE 436).
(A)---It contained acceptance of an information -
(B)---and acceptance of the charge - acknowledging it was barred by the statute of limitations.
THE PLEA AGREEMENT of 06/13/2016 WAS NOT EMBODIED IN ANY PROCEEDING
NOR WAS IT FILED ON THIS DATE NOR P R I O R
TO THE INFORMATION BEING FILED - nor until after the arraignment on 19 June 2016.
Arraignment was on 19 June 2016 at 10:30 - plea colloquy was on 19 June 2016 at 0100.
(THE SUPERSEDING INFORMATION WAS FILED AS D E 4 3 2 ON 1 5 J U N E 2 0 1 6).
2
On June 19 2016- the defendant was taken before a Magistrate -
The Magistrate was not notified of the plea agreement -
he asked for acceptance of the information -
the defendant accepted the information-
and the defendant PLEAD NOT GUILTY.
BUT HE DID NOT REFER NOR MENTION THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEING REMOVED FROM BARRING THE PROCEEDINGS).
Proceedings were docketed as DE 438 to 440 on June 19 2016.
3
OPINION:
The arraignment was effectively barred as the statute of limitations barred the information and or arraignment as the plea agreement was never filed until after the arraignment with a batch of entries reflecting the plea colloquy.
4
In various motion this has been mentioned to the court and the government - (as fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, etc.).
NO response.
It is a question I have not been able to have answered.
It is one of the issues that underlie an appeal brief that is due soon and I do not know how to proceed.
___________________________________________________________
On 04 October 2016 in DE 504 (docket entry) in the District Court,
I filed a request for information to the clerk of the court - he docketed it but never responded.
The information I repeat here is also stated in that docket entry.
The question is procedural and whether or not the timely procedure of the statute of limitations barring the proceedings is plain error and or barred the proceedings entirely.
History:
1
A plea agreement was signed by the ausa, atty and defendant on June 13 -2016.(filed on 06/19/15 as DE 436).
(A)---It contained acceptance of an information -
(B)---and acceptance of the charge - acknowledging it was barred by the statute of limitations.
THE PLEA AGREEMENT of 06/13/2016 WAS NOT EMBODIED IN ANY PROCEEDING
NOR WAS IT FILED ON THIS DATE NOR P R I O R
TO THE INFORMATION BEING FILED - nor until after the arraignment on 19 June 2016.
Arraignment was on 19 June 2016 at 10:30 - plea colloquy was on 19 June 2016 at 0100.
(THE SUPERSEDING INFORMATION WAS FILED AS D E 4 3 2 ON 1 5 J U N E 2 0 1 6).
2
On June 19 2016- the defendant was taken before a Magistrate -
The Magistrate was not notified of the plea agreement -
he asked for acceptance of the information -
the defendant accepted the information-
and the defendant PLEAD NOT GUILTY.
BUT HE DID NOT REFER NOR MENTION THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEING REMOVED FROM BARRING THE PROCEEDINGS).
Proceedings were docketed as DE 438 to 440 on June 19 2016.
3
OPINION:
The arraignment was effectively barred as the statute of limitations barred the information and or arraignment as the plea agreement was never filed until after the arraignment with a batch of entries reflecting the plea colloquy.
4
In various motion this has been mentioned to the court and the government - (as fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, etc.).
NO response.
