F.A.T., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the defendant waived his right to a speedy trial by agreeing to a trial date beyond the speedy trial time.
The defendant was charged with obstructing an officer and trespass of a conveyance. He argued he was deprived of his speedy trial rights because he di…
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 Waiver Of Speedy Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
After pleading nolo contendere to the charges of obstructing an officer and trespass of a conveyance, and reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, defendant, F.A.T., filed this appeal. We affirm.
Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial and that his right to discharge turns on the question of whether he or the state is responsible for his nonappearance at an adjudicatory hearing. Contending that he never received notice of the adjudicatory hearing, defendant maintains that the state is responsible for the court’s failure to hear his cause within ninety days of the state’s filing of the petition of delinquency. We disagree.
The record indicates that at a prior hearing defendant’s counsel specifically agreed 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pannier v. State, 582 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d DCA 1987); McArthur v. State, 303 So. 2d 359, 360 (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
- In the Interest of J.B. v. Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 436 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Long, 513 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)