WILLIE L. LITTLE, 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.
Willie L. Little appeals his conviction for escape, arguing the trial court violated his speedy trial rights by failing to bring him to trial within 180 days of his arrest. The appellate court agrees and reverses, holding that the 180-day speedy trial period began when Little was arrested on August 29, 1981, not when he was later served with a formal fugitive warrant.
The appellate court held that Little was taken into custody for speedy trial purposes on August 29, 1981, when he was arrested for escape, not on April 27, 1982, when he was served with a formal warrant. Because Little was not tried within 180 days of his arrest and was available for trial during that entire period, the trial court erred in denying his motion to discharge, and the conviction must be reversed.
[1] A defendant is entitled to discharge if not brought to trial within 180 days of arrest, in violation of Rule 3.191(a)(1) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[2] For purposes of the speedy trial rule, a person is taken into custody when arrested as a result of the conduct giving rise to the crime charged.
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“Under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1), he was required to be tried on the escape charge within 180 days of his arrest. Without dispute, the defendant was not tried within 180 days of August 29, 1981, due to no fault on his part as he was available for trial during this entire time.”
Establishes the violation of the speedy trial rule because the defendant was not tried within the 180-day period despite being available and through no fault of his own.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 21, 1981, defendant Little failed to return from a daytime work release program while serving a robbery sentence at Beckham Hall Community C…
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 Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Willie L. Little appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of escape [§ 944.40, Fla. Stat.(1983)] entered against him after a jury trial below. He raises four points on appeal, one of which is dispositive of the case. He contends, and we agree, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to discharge for failure to bring him to trial within 180 days of his arrest, in violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1). We accordingly reverse.
On August 21,1981, the defendant Little, pursuant to a daytime work release program, was permitted to leave Beckham Hall Community Center in Dade County, Florida, where he was serving a prison sentence for robbery; he failed to return to Beckham Hall that night as required. On August 29, 1981, the defendant was arrested in Dade County for this escape, as well as for a petit theft allegedly committed after he escaped from Beckham Hall. Under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1), he was required to be tried on the escape charge within 180 days of his arrest. Without dispute, the defendant was not tried within 180 days of August 29, 1981, due to no fault on his part as he was available for trial during this entire time. He should have been discharged by the trial court under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1) upon proper motion filed below by the defendant. Strickland v. State, 435 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review denied, 441 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1983); State v. McKenzie, 375 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Travis v. State, 364 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The state argues that the defendant was not taken into custody for purposes of the speedy trial rule until April 27, 1982, when the defendant was formally served with a fugitive warrant on the escape charge while in custody serving his prison sentence for robbery. We disagree. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191(a)(4) provides as follows:
“For purposes of this Rule, a person is taken into custody, (i) when the person is arrested as a result of the conduct or criminal episode which gave rise to the crime charged, or (ii) when the person is served with a notice to appear in lieu of physical arrest.”
Plainly, the defendant was arrested as a result of his escape from Beckham Hall when he was apprehended in Dade County on August 29, 1981. There is no requirement under the above rule that an arrest is not effective until a formal warrant, as here, is subsequently served upon the defendant.
The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Travis v. State, 364 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Strickland v. State, 435 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. McKENZIE, 375 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)