THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
VICKIE ANN PHILLIPS, 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.
The State appealed a prohibition judgment that barred prosecution of Phillips for misdemeanor charges on speedy trial grounds. The court reversed, holding that Phillips's failure to appear at county court arraignments rendered her unavailable for trial under Florida's speedy trial rule, despite having previously entered a not guilty plea to related felony charges in circuit court.
A defendant is not entitled to speedy trial discharge when she fails to appear at required arraignment proceedings, even if she previously pleaded not guilty to more serious charges in a higher court. The prior plea does not carry over to reduced charges because material amendments to charging documents require the defendant to plead anew.
[1] A defendant's failure to appear at a required proceeding renders them unavailable for trial under the speedy trial rule.
[2] A material change or amendment to a charging document requires the defendant to plead anew to the revised charges.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“There is no doubt that defendant's presence is required at an arraignment such as the first two regularly scheduled ones in the county court. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.160(a). Nor can we agree that the initial circuit court plea can be properly deemed to stand over, as it were, to the county court charges.”
Establishes that the defendant's prior plea in circuit court does not satisfy the requirement to appear and plead at county court arraignments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips was initially charged with two felony counts of battery on a police officer and resisting arrest with violence, plus a misdemeanor resisting …
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 Defendant Unavailability For Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from a judgment in prohibition precluding the further prosecution of criminal charges in the county court on the ground that the speedy trial time had run. We reverse.
Through counsel, the defendant Ms. Phillips filed a written plea of not guilty in the Dade County Circuit Court to two felony charges of battery on a police officer and resisting arrest with violence, in addition to a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest without violence. At the time the arraignment was scheduled in the circuit court, the charges were reduced to two misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest without violence and one of simple battery and the case was accordingly transferred to the county court. Although she was subsequently twice notified of scheduled arraignments, the defendant neither appeared nor filed a written plea to the misdemeanors in that court. At the third scheduled arraignment, however, which was by-now more than 90 days after arrest, Phillips moved for discharge under the speedy trial rule. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. The county court denied the motion, holding that her non-appearance at the first two arraignments rendered her “unavailable for trial” under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(e) and thus not entitled to discharge. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3)(iii).
On Ms. Phillips’s petition for prohibition, however, the circuit court granted the writ on the ground that the initial not guilty plea in the circuit court made any county court appearances unnecessary. We do not agree.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(e) provides that a defendant is not available for trial and therefore may not be discharged under the speedy trial rule “if (1) the person or his counsel fails to attend a proceeding where their presence is required by these RulesThere is no doubt that defendant’s presence is required at an arraignment such as the first two regularly scheduled ones in the county court. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.160(a).
Nor can we agree that the initial circuit court plea can be properly deemed to stand over, as it were, to the county court charges. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(a).
It is well settled that any material change or amendment to a charging document requires that the defendant again plead to the new information or indictment. Fekany v. State, 111 Fla. 598, 149 So. 590 (1933); State v. Stell, 407 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
This principle obviously applies to this case in which two charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors with the concomitant effect that the state was no longer required to prove, respectively, that the object of the alleged battery was a police officer and that the defendant resisted her arrest with violence. Both theoretically and practically, the fact that Ms. Phillips had pled not guilty to the more serious charges, which involved vital additional elements of the alleged offenses, does not necessarily require or even indicate that she would similarly plead to the reduced ones.
For these reasons, we determine that Ms. Phillips was required to appear, personally or through counsel, at the county court arraignments, and was therefore unavailable for trial and not entitled to discharge when she did not. See Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980); Blackstock v. Newman, 461 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985). The judgment in prohibition, which represents a contrary view is
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…able as a matter of right by the State— as it would be by any other litigant — as an appeal from a final order or judgment. Art. V, § 4, Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b). Our decisions have implicitly recognized this. See, e.g., State v. Phillips, 520 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Wassel, 502 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. . In its response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the State too proceeds on the premise that this is an appeal…
-
State v. Stronczer (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…ilable for trial and not entitled to be discharged under 3.191(k) if the person or the person’s counsel fails to attend a proceeding at which either’s presence is required. Bouchacra v. Leffler, 413 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Phillips, 520 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Belcher v. State, 372 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(citations omitted). The trial court determined that the defense waived speedy trial on April 19, 2007 when counsel was not present for trial. Although the State failed to raise…
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Stell, 407 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Blackstock v. The Honorable Robert H. Newman, 461 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Fekany v. State, 111 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)