STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BUSTER DEAN BROWN, 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.
A defense request to postpone a trial, regardless of its label, constitutes a motion for continuance that waives speedy trial rule rights.
The State appealed an order discharging the appellee under the speedy trial rule. The defense counsel's associate requested a trial postponement, whic…
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 Waiver Of Speedy Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The State appeals an order discharging appellee under the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, as it existed prior to its amendment effective January 1, 1981.1 This case was on a docket set for trial the week of March 23, 1981, which was near the end of the speedy trial period. On that date an associate of appellee’s defense counsel appeared before the trial court, and when the court indicated an intent to set this case for trial on the 24th, stated that defense counsel would be out of town until the 24th and would prefer the case be tried on the 25th or 26th. Pursuant to this statement, the court put trial off until the 25th. On the 25th the State requested a continuance because a key witness was unavailable for trial. The State’s motion for continuance was granted and the ease postponed to a time which was beyond the speedy trial rule period. The trial court granted appel-lee’s motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule and the State appeals.
We agree with the State’s contention that the request of defense counsel’s associate on March 23 to set off the trial from the 24th to the 25th constituted a motion for a continuance waiving appellee’s speedy trial rule rights under Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980), as any defense request to postpone a case for any period of time, whatever called, constitutes a motion for a continuance waiving speedy trial rule rights under Butterworth. State v. Brown, 394 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
REVERSED and remanded for further proceedings.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . The Florida Bar, In re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1980); See Holmes v. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Frazee, 617 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…nse request to postpone a case is a motion for a continuance waiving speedy trial rights regardless of its characterization. Blackstock v. Newman, 461 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985); accord State v. (Buster) Brown, 412 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 6th DCA 1982); State v. (Michael) Brown, 394 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). But more in point are State v. McCoy, 369 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and State v. Belcher, 372 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In each case the defendant’s counse…
-
Blackstock v. The Honorable Robert H. Newman, 461 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ghts under Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980). Any defense request to postpone a case for any period of time, whatever called, constitutes a motion for a continuance waiving speedy trial rule rights under Butterworth. State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (delay of one day still constituted “continuance” waiving speedy trial rule rights.) By this decision, we do not force appellant to choose between two sixth amendment rights, the right to a speedy trial and the right to counsel,…
-
Albert Banks v. State, 691 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…, rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 878 (Fla.1988); Blackstock v. Newman, 461 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 3rd DCA), rev. denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1985); State v. Fraser, 426 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1983); State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). See also Rubiera v. Dade County ex rel. Benitez, 305 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1974); State v. Oppert, 380 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1980); State v. Duda, 368 So. 2d 918, 919-920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); St…
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
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- The Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Crim. Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980)
- Holmes v. The Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State v. Brown, 394 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)