STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY HAYES, 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.
A demand for speedy trial filed before the filing of a charging instrument is a legal nullity.
The appellee filed a demand for trial before any charging instrument was filed. The state subsequently filed an information, and the appellee moved fo…
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 Charging Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion for discharge alleging that he had not been brought to trial within the speedy trial period. We reverse.
The appellee, Timothy Hayes, was arrested for introducing contraband into a correctional facility. Prior to the filing of any charging instrument, the appellee filed a demand for trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. The state subsequently filed an information charging the appellee, as an adult, for introduction of contraband into a correction facility in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), and possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987). Thereafter, the appellee filed a motion for discharge alleging that the sixty day speedy trial period had expired and that he had been continuously available for trial. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order discharging the appel-lee. The state filed this timely appeal.
A demand for speedy trial filed prior to the filing of an information is a nullity. State v. Branam, 434 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also, State v. Hill, 313 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1975); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(f)(2). We, accordingly, reverse the trial court’s order discharging the appellee and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hill, 313 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Branam, 434 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)