STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIGIO E. VILLAVICENCIO, JOSE HERNANDEZ HERRERA AND JUAN MANUEL PAZ, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1980-01-04
Nos. 78-1954, 78-2768
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
381 So. 2d 256 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Stay Of Proceedings Speedy Trial Right Interlocutory Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ANSTEAD, Judge.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal by the state from an order of the trial court discharging the appellees under the provisions of the speedy trial rule. At issue is whether the state was obligated to secure an order staying proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the state’s appeal of an order granting a motion to suppress. We hold that the state was obligated to secure such an order under the express provisions of Rule 9.140(c)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective March 1, 1978.

The state contends that it is entitled to rely on the automatic stay provisions of Section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1977). We have previously rejected such a contention, even before the adoption of Rule 9.140(c)(2), on the basis that Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, required an order from the trial court extending speedy trial time during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal filed by the state. State v. Cannon, 332 So. 2d 127 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). With the adoption of Rule 9.140(c)(2), we now believe that the Supreme Court has resolved any doubts as to the necessity of such an order. Accordingly, the order of discharge is affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mellman v. Honorable John A. Rudd, 389 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
    …out an order. For example, an interlocutory appeal filed by the state does not automatically arrest the running of trial time. It is necessary that an order be entered. See State v. Williams, 350 So. 2d 81, 82-83 (Fla. 1977); State v. Villavicencio, 381 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Here, because no [*709] order was entered and no proceeding held, that subsection similarly provides no authority to extend the time for trial. The only possible provision which could conceivably apply to the facts before us is…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw