PHILLIP BLOOM, JUDGE, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES MCKNIGHT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved whether the amended speedy trial rule, effective January 1, 1985, applies to criminal cases where the defendant was taken into custody before that date. The Court held that the amended rule applies based on when the defendant files a motion for discharge, not when custody was taken, and quashed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision granting automatic discharge under the prior rule.
The amended speedy trial rule applies to cases where the defendant was taken into custody before the rule's effective date. The determinative 'operative event' for applying the amended rule is when the defendant files a motion for discharge, not when custody was taken. Therefore, the state receives fifteen days to bring the defendant to trial rather than automatic discharge.
[1] The operative event for determining which version of the speedy trial rule applies is the defendant's motion for discharge.
[2] A motion for discharge is the operative event that dictates whether the old rule providing for automatic discharge or the amended rule allowing the state fifteen days to…
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“the rule in effect at the time of the proceeding dictates the result”
Establishes the fundamental principle that procedural rules applicable at the time of the relevant proceeding control, not rules in effect at the time custody was taken.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKnight was taken into custody prior to January 1, 1985. He filed a motion for discharge claiming denial of speedy trial rights. The Third District 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 Automatic Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review McKnight v. Bloom, 490 So. 2d 92 (3rd DCA 1986), in which the Third District Court of Appeal granted McKnight’s petition for writ of prohibition, finding that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial and was entitled to automatic discharge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(1). Florida’s speedy trial rule, as amended effective January 1, 1985, no longer provides for automatic discharge. Rule 3.191(i)(4) now gives the state fifteen days in which to bring a defendant to trial after the filing of his motion for discharge. The court found this amended version of the rule inapplicable and certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Whether Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(4) is applicable to a criminal case wherein the de fendant is taken into custody prior to January 1,1985,12:01 A.M., the effective date of the above-stated rule?
490 So. 2d at 98. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The Third District Court of Appeal sitting en banc in Zabrani v. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986), recently overruled its decision in the instant case. Relying on State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1971), the court recognized that the speedy trial rule is procedural in nature, and that, in accordance with State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), and Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1983), the rule in effect at the time of the proceeding dictates the result. The court then turned to the “determination of the relevant ‘proceeding’ or, otherwise stated, the ‘operative event’ to which the rule is to be applied,” Zabrani, 502 So. 2d at 1258, noting that
[w]hile the event which triggers the speedy trial time should be decisive in computing the length of that period ...[,] the ultimate question in this case is far different. It is the effect to be given a motion for discharge made after the period has already run: whether, as under the old rule, the defendant is to be released forthwith, or, as under the new one — which was specifically enacted expressly to obviate the perceived abuse of immediate discharge, see Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 committee note (1984), reprinted in 33 F.S.A. Rule 3.191, at 191 (West Supp. 1986) — the state is given an opportunity then to try him.
Id. at 1258-1259 (footnote omitted). Reasoning that a defendant who has been denied a speedy trial is not entitled to a discharge until he files a timely motion therefor, the court concluded that the motion itself is the “operative event” which determines which version of the speedy trial rule applies. We agree with this reasoning and adopt it as our own. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative to the extent expressed herein and quash the decision below.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993)…llow the State to prosecute under these circumstances would violate the intent of the rule. We approve the decision of the district court below, disapprove Dorian, and recede from Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1987) and Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1987), to the extent they suggest the fifteen-day window of recapture applies in such cases. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion. . We cite the 1990 ve…
-
State v. Agee, 588 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…that Dorian does not discuss the relationship between subsections (h)(2) and (i)(3) of Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We also observe that the reported facts of the two decisions relied upon by the Dorian court, Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1987), and Zabrani v. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), decision approved, 506 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1987), do not indicate that a nolle prosequi was involved in either case. ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
-
Iqbal Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1987)…1,1985,12:01 A.M., the effective date of the above-stated rule. Zabrani v. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We adopted the reasoning of the Zabrani court and answered the question posed here affirmatively in Bloom v. [*1036] McKnight, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1987). We approve the decision below. It is so ordered. MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Lowe v. The Honorable Joseph E. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1983)
- Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lender Lee Maines & Charlie B. Brown v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1971)
- McKNIGHT v. The Honorable Philip Bloom, 490 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)