EDWARD HUMPHREY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of grand larceny, reserving his appellate rights to review an order denying his motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule.
Appellant’s contention that the speedy trial time had expired is correct unless he was granted a continuance during the period of time in question. We relinquished jurisdiction so that the trial court could make that determination. We now have the trial court’s order in which he found during an evidentiary hearing that appellant’s counsel, an assistant public defender, was going to be on vacation July 13, 1977, and thus requested a continuance of the trial which had been set.
Accordingly, we think the record is now adequate to support the denial of the appellant’s motion for discharge and we affirm the judgment appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kayne Oppert, 380 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…waiver of speedy trial. As a consequence if the Supreme Court ruling in Coppola v. State, 337 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1976) is still the law, then there was no requirement for the defendant to be brought to trial within 90 days. See also Humphrey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) and. State v. Duda, 368 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). [*1302] It is therefore our conclusion that this cause must be reversed and the appellant brought to trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…