STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD R. WILLIS, 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 trial court erred in discharging the defendant because the state was entitled to ten days after the hearing on the motion for discharge to bring the defendant to trial.
The defendant was charged with sexual battery and filed a demand for speedy trial. On the fifty-first day after the demand, he moved for discharge. Th…
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 Motion For Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Harold Willis was charged with sexual battery on June 18, 1987. He filed a demand for speedy trial on December 2,1987, and on January 22, 1988, the fifty-first day after the demand, moved for discharge pursuant to Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P. A hearing was held five days later, and because the trial could not be scheduled within 60 days of the original demand, the court granted the motion for discharge. The state charges error in the failure of the court to allow ten days after the hearing for trial pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i). We agree and reverse.
In discharging this defendant for the state’s violation of the speedy trial rule, the trial court reasoned that a defendant is entitled to trial within sixty days of his initial demand. However, Rule 3.191(i)(4) now gives the state fifteen days after the filing of a motion for discharge to bring' a defendant to trial. Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1987). See also Win-field v. State, 503 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The committee note to the 1984 amendment of subsection (i) clearly indicates that the intent was to give the prosecutor a full fifteen days after the filing of a motion for discharge because ten days was deemed insufficient time in which to bring a felony defendant to trial.
The trial court erred in failing to comply with the requirement of Rule 3.191(i)(4) that trial be set within ten days of the hearing on the motion for discharge. We therefore reverse the order of discharge and remand with instructions that the defendant be brought to trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling, 123 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…place of payment was specifically designated, the effect of the contract [i]s that the place of payment [i]s the Florida office” of the law firm, placing Seuling within the ambit of Florida’s long-arm statute. Armaly v. Practice Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 533 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see, e.g., Michael Schiffrin & Assocs., P.A. v. Koraly, 957 So. 2d 655, 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that where defendant/client failed to pay a contingency fee, and the agreement does not specify the location of payment,…
-
Practice Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Orman, 614 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…[*1137] Illinois law, has previously been resolved in PMA’s favor by this court. See Practice Management Assocs., Inc. v. Cochran, 564 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). .This issue was partially resolved in Armaly v. Practice Management Assocs. Inc., 533 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In Armaly, this court held that the PMA contract properly vests jurisdiction of these disputes in Florida courts and satisfies the requirements of World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 49…
-
Vacation Ventures, Inc. v. Holiday Promotions, Inc., 687 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…e in Florida, together with the contractual agreement consenting to Florida jurisdiction, satisfy as a matter of law constitutional due process for the assertion of personal jurisdiction. VVI relies on Armaly v. Practice Management Associates, Inc., 533 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) and Jefferson Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Greenman Group, Inc., 531 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Armaly, the Second District affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Florida courts had personal jurisdiction over a South Carolin…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bloom v. McKNIGHT, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1987)
- Winfield v. State, 503 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)