THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. LONG, JR., APPELLEE
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
WILLIAM H. LONG, JR., APPELLEE
513 So. 2d 237
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the writ of prohibition issued below which, on speedy trial grounds, precluded the continued prosecution of a DUI charge in the county court. The record shows that defense counsel specifically agreed to a trial date beyond the speedy trial time, thus effecting a waiver of the appellee’s rights under the rule.1 See Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 521 (Fla.2d DCA 1986), and cases cited.
. We point out that the 1984 changes in the speedy trial rule which eliminate the requirement of immediate discharge are inapplicable to misdemeanors. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.A.T. v. State, 522 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…delinquency. We disagree. The record indicates that at a prior hearing defendant’s counsel specifically agreed [*463] to a trial date beyond the speedy trial time; as a result, defendant effectively waived his right to speedy trial. Long v. State, 513 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); J.B. v. Korda, 436 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180; see Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Affirmed.…
-
Hal Edward Coleman v. Hon. Oscar H. Eaton, Jr., 540 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…lace within 15 days of the filing of the motion for discharge is irrelevant, since the amendment to the rule eliminating the requirement of immediate discharge is not applicable to misdemeanors. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(2). See also State v. Long, 513 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the trial court is directed to discharge the petitioner from further prosecution. DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . This court stayed the trial of the misdeme…
-
Pannier v. State, 582 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…0 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Therefore, defendant’s assertion through counsel at the December fifth hearing had the effect of his agreeing to a trial date outside the speedy trial period. F.A.T. v. State, 522 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Long, 513 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)