C. S., A JUVENILE, 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.
An oral continuance by the court does not extend the speedy trial period without a specific order detailing the reasons for the extension and finding that the interests of justice require it.
Appellant was taken into custody and a trial date was set, but the public defender did not appear as he was not notified. The trial court orally conti…
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
VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court, which adjudicated the appellant a delinquent. By this appeal, the appellant alleges the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for discharge pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180, in that the appellant was denied his right to speedy trial.
We agree and reverse the order appealed. The appellant was taken into custody October 4, 1977 on a charge of attempted purse snatching. Trial date was set for December 21, 1977, at which time the appellant’s special public defender failed to appear because he had not been notified of the appointment. At this time, the trial court orally continued the cause; however, the trial judge 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). Thereafter, the speedy trial period elapsed and the appellant moved for discharge, which was denied. He was then tried and adjudicated delinquent.
An oral continuance on the court’s own motion does not extend the time for 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(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.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L. G. v. State, 405 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e new date. . The basis of our decision to reverse renders it unnecessary to consider the appellant’s contentions that the order, as subsequently reduced to writing, did not conform with the requirements of Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(c), see C.S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); M.B. v. Lee, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) and that the “continuous availability” requirement of the criminal speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191, is not even impliedly (as it is clearly not explicitly) pertinent to the…
-
M. M. v. State, 407 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e entry of an order of extension. J. R. S. v. Hastings, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). An oral continuance does not extend the speedy trial time absent a finding that the interests of justice will be served by such an extension. C. S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The state’s reliance on State v. Kelley, 322 So. 2d 581 (1st DCA 1975), is misplaced. In that case the defendant acquiesced in the continuance which was charged to both defendants. In the case sub judice, M. M. never acquiesced t…
-
Donnell Rogers v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 411 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…trial period. Mell-man rejected the notion that such an immunity agreement was an exceptional circumstance under Rule 3.191(f). Mellman, therefore, did not concern extension through exceptional circumstance, the issue in this case.4 C. S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), also cited by Rogers, is similarly un-supportive. The C. S. court concluded that an order of continuance, which failed to find that the interest of justice would be served by such extension and which did not recite the reason for…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Judge v. State, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of R. L. P. v. Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)