FRANK BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-05-07
No. 83-2440
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ.
468 So. 2d 457 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is reversed and the appellant discharged upon a finding that the state did not sustain its burden of showing that appellant was not, at the relevant times, available for trial. Non-availability will not be presumed and when a defendant moves for discharge on the basis that the speedy trial time has run, the state must provide better evidence than an assistant state attorney’s “understanding” that a continuance was properly charged to the defendant. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e).

Reversed with directions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Lasker v. The Honorable James S. Parker & the Honorable John R. Blue, 513 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
    …date beyond the speedy trial limit. See, e.g., Saunders v. State, 436 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). A state attorney’s “understanding” that a defense continuance was requested has been deemed to be insufficient evidence of a waiver. Black v. State, 468 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Analogously, rule 3.191(d)(2), which provides for extension of the time limits for trial, specifies that any such extension must be procured by a written stipulation or by an announcement in open court. Martin v. State, 449 So. 2…
  • Hajal v. State, 864 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …court); Lasker v. Parker, 513 So. 2d 1374 [*1170] (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (some record must exist to support a finding that counsel did intend a waiver of speedy trial or that he acquiesced in a trial date beyond the speedy trial limit); Black v. State, 468 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (a state attorney’s “understanding” that a defense continuance was requested is insufficient evidence of a waiver of speedy trial); State v. Swint, 464 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (waiver of speedy trial cannot be inferred from…
  • Miketa v. The Honorable Gisela Cardonne, 549 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …and they are now entitled to a discharge. Watts v. State, 516 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Apolinari v. Ulmer, 483 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1335 (Fla.1986); Davis v. State, 474 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Black v. State, 468 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Brunson v. State, 422 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1983). The petition for a writ of prohibition is granted, the rule nisi previously issued is made absolute, and the respondent trial court…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw