GEORGE GARCIA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court held that the state's interest in a joint trial of conspiracy defendants does not justify extending the speedy trial period absent circumstances specific to the incident.
The state's convenience in conducting a joint trial of conspiracy defendants, without other specific circumstances related to the incident, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying extension of the speedy trial period.
[1] State convenience in conducting a joint trial of conspiracy defendants does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying extension of the speedy trial period abs…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The conspiracy charge, without any other circumstances, is, in effect, the convenience argument we rejected in Westlake.”
The Court explaining why the state's reliance on the conspiracy charge alone cannot justify a speedy trial extension.
Garcia was charged in a conspiracy case where the state sought to join defendants for trial and requested an extension of the speedy trial deadline ba…
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 Exceptional Circumstances For Speedy Trial Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review. Garcia v. State, 474 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the district court held that, where defendants are joined on conspiracy charges, the state’s interest in a joint trial prevails over a defendant’s speedy trial right. This decision conflicts with our opinion in Miner v. Westlake, 478 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. In Westlake, we held that state “convenience” in a joint trial is not an exceptional circumstance under rule 3.191(d)(2), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, justifying extension of the speedy trial period. See also Fleet v. Bustos, 482 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1986); State v. Darby, 482 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1986). In the instant case, the state claims that a conspiracy charge and its attendant complications justify an extension beyond the speedy trial limit. We disagree. The conspiracy charge, without any other circumstances, is, in effect, the convenience argument we rejected in Westlake. If we accepted the state’s argument, the state would automatically be entitled to a speedy trial extension any time a codefendant in a conspiracy charge is granted a continuance. We hold that the circumstances must be something related to the specific incident, rather than just the general nature of a conspiracy charge.
Accordingly, we quash the district court decision and direct that this cause be remanded to the trial court for entry of an order consistent with this decision.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD and BARKETT, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents.
EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which McDONALD, C.J., concurs.
EHRLICH, Justice,
dissenting.
I would approve the opinion below. Its rationale stated in the last paragraph
In summary, where defendants are joined on conspiracy charges, and the state timely moves for an extension of the speedy trial time period, showing that the extension is necessary to accommodate the co-defendants, the state’s interest in a joint trial prevails over the defendant’s speedy trial right provided the extension is not to an unreasonably distant date.
clearly distinguishes it from Miner v. Westlake, 478 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1985), and makes good sense.
I, therefore, dissent.
McDONALD, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 694 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…rial time. Miner v. Westlake, 478 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1985). In addition, the fact that this is a conspiracy case does not, because of its attendant complications, justify an extension. Such a claim is in effect a convenience argument. Garcia v. State, 498 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, although a showing that a delay is necessary to accommodate a code-fendant may constitute an exceptional circumstance, it is only an exceptional circumstance when there is reason not to sever the cases in order to proceed p…
-
Efren Nazario v. State, 700 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…taken. ‘“[A] defendant’s right to a speedy trial takes precedence over the mere convenience to the State of trying him and his codefendants together.’ ” Miner v. Westlake, 478 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla.1985) (citation omitted); accord Garcia v. State, 498 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1986). We have considered the question whether it was necessary for defendant Na-zario to file a formal motion for severance in addition to his demand for speedy trial. The Second District has said that “when [the] speedy trial [period] was ex…
Authorities Cited
- Miner v. Westlake, 478 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1985)
- Fleet v. Bustos, 482 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1986)
- Garcia v. State, 474 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)