STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
A.J., A CHILD, 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's dismissal of the case was improper because the state ultimately provided discovery, allowing the defense to prepare for trial.
The defendant was arrested for drug offenses and faced a sixty-day speedy trial period. Due to improper notice procedures, his arraignment was delayed…
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 Dismissal Of Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On February 22, 1988, A.J. was arrested for drug-related offenses. On April 6, 1988, an information was filed charging him with delivery and possession of cocaine. These offenses carry a sixty-day speedy trial period, so the state was obligated to begin A.J.’s trial no later than May 22, 1988.
Because of improper notice procedures, A.J. was not arraigned until May 10, 1988. This understandably annoyed the trial judge; through the combined actions of the clerk’s, sheriff's, and state attorney's offices, most of A.J.’s speedy trial period had already expired. Only twelve days remained for the defense to prepare for trial.
At the arraignment the defense attorney made an oral request for discovery, stating that they could go to trial on the 19th if she received discovery that afternoon or the following day. The assistant state attorney responded that discovery would not be furnished absent a written request. The trial judge, after noting that the state had given the public defender only a week to prepare and now was going to stand on a technicality, announced that he was going to dismiss the case. And, when it came up for trial on the 19th, that is exactly what he did.
While we understand the trial judge’s annoyance and recognize the validity of his concerns, we also note that the assistant state attorney managed to provide the discovery the day after it was requested. Since the assistant public defender stated on the record that she could be prepared if this was done, we find the dismissal improper. See State v. Ray, 525 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braswell v. Braswell, 881 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…Mrs. Braswell. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement also references the transfer of the California property to the wife, lending further support to the conclusion that the parties did not intend the monthly payments to be alimony. See also Hughes v. Hughes, 558 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (the court observed that a contractual provision is a property settlement where one party surrenders valuable property interests in consideration for the right to receive periodic payments; the court noted that the wife agreed to…
Authorities Cited
- State v. RAY, 525 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)