IN THE INTEREST OF R. L. P., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE LAWRENCE L. KORDA, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 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.
An oral continuance granted by the court on its own motion does not extend the speedy trial period without a specific order reciting the reasons for the extension.
The juvenile defendant did not have an adjudicatory hearing within the 90-day period. The trial court granted a 'defense continuance' to appoint a law…
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 Florida Rule Of Juvenile Procedure 8.180 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of prohibition alleges the trial court erred in failing to discharge defendant under the juvenile speedy trial rule and seeks to prohibit the trial court from exercising any further jurisdiction over the defendant. It is uncontro-verted that the juvenile defendant did not have an adjudicatory hearing within the 90-day period defined in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(a).
Briefly, the trial court was of the mistaken belief at arraignment that the child had funds to hire his own attorney. On the day of adjudicatory hearing, which was the last day before speedy trial was to run, the child appeared without an attorney. The trial judge then ordered a “defense continuance” to allow time to appoint a lawyer for the child. However, the court did not enter an order specifically extending speedy trial reciting the reasons for the extension as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(c).
As we held in In Interest of J.R.S. v. Hastings, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), an oral continuance on the court’s own motion does not extend speedy trial without a finding that the interests of justice will be served by such extension and a recitation of the reasons for such extension as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180.
There is no issue concerning the continuous availability of the child for trial or that he was in any way at fault in delaying the adjudicatory hearing. We therefore must grant the child’s petition and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to discharge the child.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C. S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…l be served by such extension and a recitation of the reasons for such extension, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(c). See: In Interest of J.R.S. v. Hastings, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); In Interest of R.L.P. v. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Therefore, absent a showing that the appellant was in any way at fault in delaying the adjudicatory hearing, we must reverse the order appealed and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to discharge the child.…
-
In the Interest of M. B. v. LEE, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…was continued because the juvenile changed his mind about representing himself and requested counsel, a valid reason for continuance and extension of speedy trial, a brief order would have satisfied the rule. See In the Interest of R.L.P. v. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); In the Interest of J.R.S. v. Hastings, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).…
-
V.C. v. The Honorable Ralph B. Ferguson, Jr., 422 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…f his arrest. Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180. Where the State fails in its duty to bring a juvenile to trial within the prescribed time, the juvenile is entitled to discharge. G.S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); In the Interest of R.L.P. v. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Since it is clear that the juvenile failed to appear at the sounding on September 10, 1980, but never received notice of that court hearing, his right to discharge turns on the question of whether he or the State was responsible…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The LAW Firm OF Patterson v. Gertrude Kahn Koebrich, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)