Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialhabeas corpusfelonystatute of limitations
defendantjurisdictionstatutetrialhabeas corpusfelonystatute of limitations

Related Cases

In re Marriage of Allen, 724 P.2d 651
View Case »
Migerobe, Inc. v. Certina USA, Inc., 924 F.2d 1330, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 59
View Case »
McEwen v. MCR, LLC, 368 Mont. 38, 291 P.3d 1253, 2012 MT 319
View Case »
Management Capital, L.L.C. v. F.A.F., Inc., 209 A.3d 1162
View Case »
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490, 56 USLW 4806, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14030A
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Higgins v. People, 868 P.2d 371

Facts

On July 2, 1990, the People filed a felony complaint against Higgins for theft occurring in October 1989. Higgins later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations because he believed the original complaint was filed in November 1992. The trial court found that the original complaint was indeed filed within the three-year statute of limitations, and the amended complaint, which added victims, was not time-barred.

On July 2, 1990, the People filed a felony complaint in case No. 90F416 in the county court of Mesa County, charging Higgins with an October 1989 theft. On December 23, 1992, the People filed an amended complaint in case No. 92CR685.

Issue

Whether the original felony complaint filed against Higgins was barred by the statute of limitations and whether the amended complaint was valid.

Higgins advances two arguments to support his claim that the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Rule

The statute of limitations for felony theft is three years, and a felony complaint is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.

Except as otherwise provided by statute applicable to specific offenses or circumstances, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense unless the indictment, information, or complaint is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or a summons and complaint or penalty assessment notice is served upon the defendant within the period of time after the commission of the offense as specified below: …. Other felonies [theft]: Three years[.]

Analysis

The court determined that the terms 'complaint' and 'felony complaint' are equivalent for statute of limitations purposes. It found that the original felony complaint was filed on July 2, 1990, well within the three-year limit, and that the amended complaint, which merely added victims, did not constitute a new charge that would be barred by the statute of limitations.

We believe that a plain reading of the definitions of 'complaint' and 'felony complaint' supports a construction which integrates the two terms for purposes of the statute of limitations and leads to a just and reasonable result.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Higgins' detention was legal and the prosecution was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, upon the filing of the felony complaint on July 2, 1990, the statute of limitations was tolled and the People are not time-barred from prosecuting Higgins.

Who won?

The People prevailed in the case because the court found that the original felony complaint was timely filed and that the amended complaint did not introduce new charges.

The trial court found, however, that the amended complaint was not time-barred because the original complaint was filed within the appropriate time.

You must be