T.L., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES S. BYRD, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 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 juvenile charged with burglary of a conveyance challenged the trial court's grant of the state's motion to extend the speedy trial deadline, arguing the extension order violated procedural requirements that mandate a hearing and stated reasons. The appellate court granted a writ of prohibition, finding the extension order invalid because it was entered without a hearing and without recitation of reasons as required by law.
No. An extension of the speedy trial deadline must be predicated upon full compliance with the statutory and rule requirements, which mandate a hearing and recitation of reasons. The trial court's order granting the extension was invalid because it was entered without a hearing and without any reasons being recited by the trial court.
[1] An order extending the speedy trial period for a juvenile requires a hearing and a recitation of reasons for the extension.
[2] A speedy trial extension order entered without a hearing and without reciting reasons is invalid.
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 intelligence“Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(d) and section 39.05(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), require a hearing and recitation of reasons for an extension order. The law is clear that an extension order must be predicated upon full compliance with these requirements.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirements for extending speedy trial deadlines in juvenile cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.L., a juvenile, was arrested on December 13, 1983, and charged with burglary of a conveyance. The speedy trial deadline was March 12, 1984. An adjud…
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 Juvenile Speedy Trial Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The petitioner, T.L., a juvenile, was arrested on December 13, 1983, and charged with a delinquent act (burglary of a conveyance). Speedy trial time, therefore, expired on March 12, 1984. An adjudicatory hearing was set for March 1, but continued pursuant to motion by the state. It was reset for March 20, 1984.
On March 12, 1984, the state, perceiving the speedy trial problem, filed a motion for extension of speedy trial. This was granted without hearing by the trial court by order dated March 12, 1984. On March 19, 1984, petitioner moved to vacate the order of extension on the basis that it violated the requirements of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(d) and section 39.-05(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court denied this motion. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure of the state to comply with the juvenile speedy trial rule was also denied. It is the order denying the latter motion that we review here via T.L.’s petition for a writ of prohibition. See M.B. v. Lee, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(d) and section 39.05(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), require a hearing and recitation of reasons for an extension order. The law is clear that an extension order must be predicated upon full compliance with these requirements. J.J.S. v. State, 440 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); K.L.H. v. State, 407 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It is equally clear that there was no such compliance in this case. As pointed out in Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980): In the absence of an order of extension entered by the trial court during the speedy trial period, we will not find that the time was extended, no matter how compelling or exceptional the circumstances may appear. Here, there was no valid order of extension entered by the trial court during the speedy trial period because it was entered without hearing. Moreover, no compelling or exceptional circumstances appear from this record nor were any reasons for the extension recited at any time by the trial court.
The writ is issued, the trial court is prohibited from trial of the petitioner, T.L., in Orange County Circuit Court Juvenile Case No. 83-3457, Division 5, and the petitioner is discharged from custody in that case.
WRIT GRANTED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of H.B. v. State, 455 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…edy trial period in this case was error in that an extension order must be entered, reciting the reasons for the extension, prior to the time speedy trial period expires for there to be a valid extension of the speedy trial period. See T.L. v. Byrd, 451 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Fla.R. Juv.P. 8.180. Here, the ruling by the trial judge was entered subsequent to the speedy trial period, was not reduced to writing, and was insufficient as a matter of law as regards the reason given for the extension. Accor…
-
T.C. v. State, 540 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…that the file was missing until several days before speedy trial expired. Additionally, we note that the trial judge failed to recite his specific reasons for granting the motion and the length of the extension as required by the rule. T.L. v. Byrd, 451 So. 2d 535 (Fla.1984); H.B. v. State, 455 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Reversed and remanded. CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of M. B. v. LEE, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of K. L. H., 407 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- J.J.S. v. State, 440 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)