STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY ELDON GREEN, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's discharge of a defendant for failure to bring him to trial within 180 days as required by the criminal procedure rules then in effect. The court affirms, holding that the 1985 amendments to the criminal procedure rules have only prospective effect and do not apply to cases where the speedy trial period began before the amendments became effective.
The court holds that Florida rules of court have prospective effect only unless an express statement provides otherwise. Because the speedy trial period began on June 25, 1984, before the 1985 amendments became effective on January 1, 1985, the new rule does not apply, and the trial court properly applied the former rule 3.191.
[1] Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, like other rules of court, have prospective effect only, absent an express statement to the contrary.
[2] The speedy trial period begins to run from the date of the defendant's arrest.
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 rules of court have prospective effect only, absent an express statement to the contrary.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing whether the 1985 amendments apply to this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Jerry Eldon Green was arrested on June 25, 1984, for sexual battery on a child. An information was filed on August 6, 1984. Green's name was…
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 Speedy Trial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The state appeals a trial court order discharging defendant, Jerry Eldon Green, for the state’s failure to bring him to trial within the time prescribed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(E).
On June 25, 1984, the defendant was arrested for sexual battery on a child over the age of eleven years in violation of section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1983). The state filed an information against him on August 6, 1984. Defendant’s arraignment was scheduled for August 13, but his name was dropped inadvertently from the court docket on that date. The state filed a notice of arraignment and notice of trial on January 8, 1985.
On January 10 defense counsel filed a motion for discharge alleging that defendant had not been brought to trial within the 180-day time period set by rule 3.191(a)(1), in effect when defendant was arrested. The trial court granted defendant’s motion on January 23. The state’s timely appeal ensued.
The state argues that the. trial court erred in applying the criminal procedure rules, which were in effect on June 25, 1984. It contends that the new rules, effective January 1,1985, applied t.o this case because defendant was not discharged until January 23, 1985. Thus, under the new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(i)(4), the state asserts that it had ten days from the hearing on the motion for discharge to bring defendant to trial.1 We disagree. 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, 462 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1984). The event which began the running of speedy trial time was the taking of defendant into custody on June 25, 1984. Arnold; Jackson. Since this event occurred before the effective date of the 1985 amendments, new rule 3.191(i)(4) does not apply. Consequently,' the trial judge properly applied the former rule 3.191 in granting defendant’s motion for discharge after the speedy trial time had run.
Affirmed.
RYDER, C.J., and FRANK, J., concur. . Rule 3.191(i)(4), effective January 1, 1985, provides:
No later than 5 days from the date of the filing of a motion for discharge, the court shall hold a hearing on the motion, and unless the court finds that one of the reasons set forth in section (d)(3) exists, shall order that the defendant be brought to trial within 10 days. If the defendant is not brought to trial within the 10 day period through no fault of the defendant, the defendant shall be forever discharged from the crime.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…la. 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 followed in McKnight, held that the key factor was “[t]he event which began the running of speedy trial time[,] ... the taking of defendant into custody on June 25,1984.” In our view, this analysis is incorrect. Wh…1 / 2
-
McKNIGHT v. The Honorable Philip Bloom, 490 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Based on the authority of State v. Green, 473 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we grant the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the petitioner, defendant below, Charles McKnight on the basis that the said petitioner has been denied his right to a speedy trial below and is entitled to discharge under…
-
Gordon v. The Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 495 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…P. 3.191(a)(1). . See State v. Brandt, 460 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985); Bannister v. State, 382 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Cf. McKnight v. Bloom, 490 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986); State v. Green, 473 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(4).…
Previewing 3 of 9 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 re: Amendment to Rules-Criminal Procedure, 462 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1984)
- 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)
- Arnold v. State, 429 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)