THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GARY RICHARD, RESPONDENT
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 trial court erred in discharging the defendant without allowing the State the benefit of the fifteen-day "window" to bring the defendant to trial after the motion for discharge was filed.
[1] A trial court errs in discharging a defendant for a speedy trial violation without affording the state the benefit of the fifteen-day "window" to bring the defendant to t…
[2] When a defendant files a motion for discharge based on speedy trial rule violations, the trial court must apply the version of the speedy trial rule in effect at the time…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent was arrested for a misdemeanor in 1989 and later filed a motion for discharge, claiming a speedy trial violation. The trial court granted t…
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 Speedy Trial Right cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The respondent was arrested for a misdemeanor offense in April of 1989. Approximately two years later, the respondent filed a motion for discharge, under Rule 3.191 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, claiming that his rights under the speedy trial rule had been violated and that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him.1
On April 26, 1991, a hearing was held and the respondent’s motion for discharge was granted. Thereafter, the State appealed the discharge to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, claiming that the State had been deprived of the benefit of the fifteen day “window” provided for in Rule 3.191(i)(3). The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court rendered a per curiam affirmance and the State now petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari.
We hold that the trial court erred in discharging the defendant without allowing the State to have the benefit of the fifteen day “window”, referred to above, to bring the defendant to trial after the filing of the motion for discharge. The trial court should have applied the version of Rule 3.191 that was in effect at the time that the defendant filed his motion for discharge, not the version in effect at the time of his arrest.2 See Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1987); Zabrani v. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), approved, 506 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, with directions to the Circuit Court to reverse the dismissal and discharge entered by the County Court Judge and, further, to remand this cause to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. Despite the foregoing, the respondent did not seek a Writ of Prohibition from the Circuit Court.
. Rule 3.191(i) formerly granted the fifteen day “window" only to felonies. It was amended, effective July 1, 1989, and now applies the “window” to both felonies and misdemeanors.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ing relief from a per curiam affirmance of circuit court appellate division); State v. Bock, 659 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (granting petition for writ of certiorari from circuit court appellate division per curiam affirmance); State v. Richard, 610 So. 2d 107, 107-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding the trial court applied the wrong version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 and granting relief from a per curiam affirmance); Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (granting certiora…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. A 1ST Choice Healthcare Sys., 21 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…curiam affirmance of a county [*126] court dismissal of a DUI charge on ground that police officer acted in bad faith where only possible view of the evidence demonstrated otherwise and trial court’s oral pronouncement so stated); State v. Richard, 610 So. 2d 107, 107-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (exercising jurisdiction to quash a circuit court appellate division per curiam affirmance of county court order discharging defendant without affording the state the benefit of required “window period” to bring defendant…
-
State v. Lopez, 633 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…e circuit court order, with directions to the circuit court to reverse the dismissal and discharge entered by the county court judge, and further to remand this cause to the county court for further proceedings consistent herewith. State v. Richard, 610 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . Karasek v. State, No. CJAP 90-18 (9th Cir.Ct., December 11, 1990) (Orange County); Tardif v. State, CJAP 88-22 (9th Cir.Ct., December 28, 1988) (Osce…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Bloom v. McKNIGHT, 502 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1987)
- Iqbal Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1987)