JAMES LEWIS DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Defendant Davis appealed his conviction, claiming he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial under Florida Rule 3.191. The court held that once the trial court conditionally accepted Davis's guilty plea in September 1977, jeopardy attached and the speedy trial rule ceased to apply, so the subsequent delays did not violate his speedy trial rights.
The defendant was afforded his right to a speedy trial. Upon the trial court's conditional acceptance of the plea on September 6, 1977, jeopardy attached and the speedy trial rule ceased to apply. When the court later rejected the plea, it properly set trial within a reasonable time.
[1] Jeopardy attaches upon a court's conditional acceptance of a guilty plea, at which point the speedy trial rule ceases to apply.
[2] When a court rejects a previously accepted guilty plea, it may properly set a new trial date within a reasonable time.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Upon the trial court's conditional acceptance of defendant's plea on September 6, 1977, jeopardy attached and the speedy trial rule ceased to apply.”
Establishes the key legal principle that acceptance of a guilty plea stops the speedy trial clock by attaching jeopardy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 6, 1977, the trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea with a caveat that it could rescind approval if a presentence investigation rev…
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 Attachment Of Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
The issue presented by this appeal from an adjudication of guilt and sentence is whether defendant Davis was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. We hold that defendant was afforded his right to a speedy trial and affirm.
On September 6, 1977, the court accepted a guilty plea from defendant but clearly indicated that if the presentence investigation disclosed facts or circumstances which led the court to conclude the plea bargain was unfair or required a different disposition, the court would rescind its approval. On November 22,1977, the trial court found the plea unacceptable, but instead of rejecting the plea, the court suggested the defendant undérgo an evaluation to determine whether participation in a drug rehabilitation program could be of benefit as a condition of an acceptable plea. The trial court ordered a drug evaluation1 and postponed sentencing until January of 1978.
No action was taken, in fact, until March, 1978, when defendant tendered a new negotiated plea which contained a special probationary condition that he enter a drug rehabilitation program. In response to the court’s questions, however, defendant disclosed an attitude about the use of drugs which was inconsistent with the tendered plea. The court then rejected the plea and set trial for April 3, 1978.
Defendant moved for discharge claiming that the speedy trial requirements of Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, required his trial to have been held no later than November 2, 1977. This motion for discharge was denied, and defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced. Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
Upon the trial court’s conditional acceptance of defendant’s plea on September 6, 1977, jeopardy attached and the speedy trial rule ceased to apply. See State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). After the plea had been accepted, defendant was no longer available for trial. When the court later rejected the plea, it properly set trial within a reasonable time. State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, supra. See generally, Butterworth v. Fluellen (Fla.1980) (Case No. 57,385, opinion filed July 24, 1980). Under these circumstances, defendant was afforded his right to a speedy trial.
The adjudication and sentence are affirmed.
. This order was later vacated since an evaluation had already been conducted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Montgomery, Searcy & Denney, P.A., 555 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…hearing, ap-pellees argued that appellant should receive nothing. An attorney’s right to a fee terminates when the attorney realizes or should realize that he or she cannot ethically represent his or her client. White v. Roundtree Transport, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The conflict arose before appellees made appellant part of their client’s lawsuit and continued thereafter. After the conflict, no attorney-client relationship could have been ethically established between appellees and appellant…
-
Ballard v. Honorable Frank N. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…uted a waiver.- Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Llanusa v. Glickstein, 376 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); White v. State, 338 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hammock v. State, 330 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Davis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cited by respondent, are distinguishable because in those cases the plea was entered before the speedy trial rule period had expired. This court has held th…
-
State v. Rosenfeld, 467 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nce the motion to withdraw the plea was granted, the case was outside the ambit of rule 3.191 and all that was left to do was set the case for trial within a reasonable [*733] time. Wehrle v. State, 414 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Davis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The failure to file the perjury count was clearly a feature of the negotiated plea. The defendant cannot defeat the state’s opportunity to charge her by negotiating a plea and then obtaining a favorable ruling, after the speedy t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. William M. C. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)