It would be difficult to reconcile how a defendant under those circumstances would be entitled only to a new trial while a defendant raising the statute of limitations for the first time on appeal would be entitled to discharge. 24 . Anomalously, a rule permitting a defendant to raise this issue for the first time on appeal would prevent the State from establishing, for example, that the State and defendant had expressly agreed to extend the statute of limitations in exchange for forbearance of charges while the parties attempted to negotiate a resolution in which defendant would enter into a pretrial diversion program. See, e.g., Doyle v. State, 783 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Lowe v. State, 501 So.2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); United States v. Wild, 551 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (<HOLDING>). 25 . A defendant who has waived the statute
holding that the government must be held to a promise made to a defendant during plea negotiations if that promise induced the defendants guilty plea holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution holding defendant could validly waive statute of limitations in effort to prevent being indicted during the completion of plea negotiations with the prosecution holding that defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense by failing to cite the specific statute in its answer holding rules 410 and 174f preclude impeaching defendant with statements made in the expectation of a plea agreement including document  signed during plea negotiations