CHARLES RAY ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the denial of the motion for discharge was error because the speedy trial rule in effect at the time of the defendant's return to Florida applied, and the state failed to bring him to trial within the prescribed one-year period.
[1] Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure amendments have prospective effect only, absent an express statement to the contrary.
[2] A prisoner in Florida charged with a nonviolent felony must be brought to trial within one year without demand, with the time commencing upon arrest for the conduct or th…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Ray Arnold appealed the denial of his motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule after being charged with escape. He had escaped, served…
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 Nonviolent Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Charles Ray Arnold appeals the denial of his motion for discharge filed pursuant to the Florida speedy trial rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. We reverse.
Arnold escaped from the Deep Lake Road Prison on March 15, 1973. He had been serving a twenty-year sentence for second-degree murder. The state filed an information charging him with this escape on March 23, 1973. Having made his way to Georgia, he was later arrested and charged with several burglaries in that state. He later pled guilty to those crimes and served time in the Georgia state prison system from 1973 to October, 1980. According to his testimony at the hearing on the motion for discharge, Arnold was returned to Florida by Florida officials on October 8, 1980, because of detainers lodged against him. Florida incarcerated him in the state prison facility at Belle Glade where he resumed serving his sentence for the second-degree murder.
On March 8, 1982, Arnold filed a motion for discharge asserting that the state had failed to grant him a speedy trial on the escape charge.
At the hearing on this motion, the circuit judge applied the speedy trial rule adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in 1980. See The Florida Bar, In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1980). He concluded that Arnold was required to file a demand, and since no demand appeared in the court file, he denied Arnold’s motion. Arnold then pled nolo contendere to the escape charge and reserved his appeal rights on this issue.
In The Florida Bar, our supreme court adopted certain amendments and additions to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The effective date of all the rules, save those relating to mental competency, was January 1, 1981. The Florida Rules of Court have only prospective effect, absent an express statement to the contrary. Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533, 19 So. 649 (1896).
In Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the petitioner, already a prisoner in Florida, was taken into custody on October 19, 1980, for battery on a law enforcement officer.
On March 18, 1981, the state charged him with that crime.
On May 28, 1981, the petitioner filed a motion for discharge contending that the 1980 amendments (effective January 1, 1981) to the Rules of Criminal Procedure should apply. Such an application would have required the state to try the petitioner within 180 days of his arrest. The court held that these amendments to the speedy trial rule did not apply because the supreme court did not make them expressly retroactive. Since the arrest occurred prior to the effective date of the amendments, the older rules applied, and the state had one year to bring the petitioner to trial.
The applicable rule here also is former rule 3.191(b)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 That rule provides that a prisoner in Florida, charged with a misdemeanor or a nonviolent felony, must be brought to trial within one year without demand. The charge of escape is a nonviolent felony. See § 944.40, Fla.Stat. (1979). The time begins running when one of two events occur: when the accused is taken into custody for the subject conduct, or when the state charges the accused with the subject crime, whichever is earlier. When the state charged Arnold with escape, however, he was no longer a prisoner in Florida for purposes of rule 3.191(b)(1) because of that escape.
Therefore, the speedy trial time began running when Arnold was arrested and returned to Florida on the escape charge. Once back in prison, he continued to serve his second-degree murder sentence and so he was serving time pursuant to a criminal judgment of guilt. See Lewis v. State, 357 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1978).
Therefore, the state had one year from Oc tober 8, 1980,2 to try Arnold for the escape. Having failed to do so, it was error for the trial judge to deny Arnold’s motion for discharge.
REVERSED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . (b)(1).
Prisoners in Florida; Trial Without Demand. Except as otherwise provided, a person who is imprisoned in a penal or correctional institution of this State or a subdivision thereof and who is charged by indictment or information, whether or not a detainer has been filed against such person, shall without demand be brought to trial within one year if the crime charged be a misdemeanor or felony not involving violence, within two years if the crime charged be a noncapital felony involving violence, or if the crime charged be punishable by death; and if not brought to trial within such term shall upon motion timely filed with the court having jurisdiction and served upon the prosecuting attorney be forever discharged from the crime. The period of time established by this rule shall commence when the person is taken into custody as a result of the subject conduct or criminal episode, or when the subject charge of crime is filed, whichever is earlier, whether or not such period may commence to run before such person began to serve his term of imprisonment.
. The date Arnold was taken into custody on the escape charge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…committed before the effective date of the rule change. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla.1981); Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Arnold, v. State, 429 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time the offense was committed. We observe that the same sentence is possible if clear and convincing reasons for departure from the then…
-
Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…386 (Fla.1984). The problem before us, however, is the determination of the relevant “proceeding” or, otherwise stated, the “operative event” to which the rule is to be applied. See Hood v. State, 415 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Arnold v. State, 429 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Holmes v. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1982); Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). State v. Green, 473 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which was…
-
State v. Green, 473 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ring on the motion for discharge to bring defendant to trial.1 We disagree. [*824] Florida rules of court have prospective effect only, absent an express statement to the contrary. Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533, 19 So. 649 (1896); Arnold v. State, 429 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The 1985 amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure were effective “after 12:01 A.M. January 1, 1985.” The Florida Bar re: Amendment to Rules — Criminal Procedure,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Crim. Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980)
- Wood v. State, 357 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1978)
- Lewis v. State, 357 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1978)
- Nat Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1896)
- Earine Bernard Jackson v. Honorable R. A. Green, Jr., 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)