DEBRA NESWORTHY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Debra Nesworthy appealed her felony DUI conviction, arguing that the state violated speedy trial rules by filing a felony charge after a misdemeanor DUI charge was nolle prossed. The court affirmed, holding that expiration of speedy trial on a lesser misdemeanor does not bar prosecution on a greater felony offense and that felonies have their own applicable speedy trial time frames.
The court held that expiration of speedy trial on a lesser included misdemeanor with its shorter time frames does not bar prosecution on a greater felony offense. Felonies may be charged and prosecuted within the speedy trial time frames applicable to felonies, notwithstanding the speedy trial status of any previously filed misdemeanor.
[1] Expiration of speedy trial on a lesser included misdemeanor does not bar prosecution on a greater felony offense.
[2] A felony may be charged and brought to trial within the speedy trial time frames applicable to felonies, notwithstanding the speedy trial status of any previously filed m…
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 intelligence“expiration of speedy trial on a lesser included misdemeanor with its shorter time frames does not bar prosecution on a greater felony offense”
Establishes the core holding that misdemeanor speedy trial expiration does not prevent felony prosecution based on the same conduct
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNesworthy was involved in an accident on November 5, 1993. She was initially served with a notice to appear on a misdemeanor DUI charge on January 5, …
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 Driving Under The Influence Causing Serious Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Appellant, Debra Nesworthy, has raised several issues on appeal of her conviction for driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury. We conclude that only one of the issues raised merits discussion.
The accident out of which this criminal charge arose occurred on November 5, 1993.
On January 5, 1993, she was served with a notice to appear on a charge of misdemeanor driving under the influence.
On April 20, 1993, a hearing was held on Nesworthy’s motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule. The parties set a date for a plea; however, two days later the state nolle prose-quied the misdemeanor DUI charge. Approximately one month later, the state filed a two-count information charging DUI with serious bodily injury, a felony, and DUI with personal or property damage, a misdemean-or.
On June 2, 1993, Nesworthy moved for speedy trial discharge. The court granted discharge on the misdemeanor but not on the felony. Thereafter, on July 2,1993, Neswor-thy filed a motion for continuance and waived speedy trial.
On appeal, Nesworthy contends that the lower court erred in failing to dismiss the felony when it dismissed the misdemeanor in June 1993. She relies on the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1993).
In essence, Nesworthy contends that, under the rule of Agee, at the time of the filing of the felony DUI charge, the speedy trial deadline had passed. She reasons that because the state nolle prosequied the misdemeanor, subsection (o) of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 controlled and prevented the state from thereafter prosecuting a new crime grounded on the same conduct or criminal episode. Nesworthy acknowledges that if the felony and misdemeanor charges had been brought together in the first instance, or if the felony charge had been brought prior to the expiration of the misdemeanor speedy trial deadline, then the felony speedy trial time period would apply. Because of Agee and the nolle prosequi, Nesworthy argues, once the misdemeanor speedy trial deadline had run, the state could not recapture the remaining time period by filing a felony charge.
We can find nothing in the Agee opinion nor in its underlying rationale that would lead to the result urged by Nesworthy. The Agee court did not have before it, and did not consider, the nol pros of a misdemeanor. We have previously held that expiration of speedy trial on a lesser included misdemean-or with its shorter time frames does not bar prosecution on a greater felony offense. Spurlock v. Cycmanick, 584 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). It appears to us most logical, and most consistent with the scheme set forth in Rule 3.191, that notwithstanding the speedy trial status of any previously filed misdemeanor, a felony may be charged and the defendant brought to trial within the speedy trial time frames applicable to felonies.1
AFFIRMED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Additionally, we note that the July 2, 1993 speedy trial waiver would be effective as of that date. See Bryant v. State, 650 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Woodruff, 676 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1996)…Without the current misdemeanor DUI conviction, the charge of felony DUI could not be proven. In contrast, if Woodruff had been charged with the felony of DUI with serious bodily injury, a different result could have ensued. See Nesworthy v. State, 648 So. 2d 259, 259-60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (upholding a conviction of DUI with serious bodily injury that was tried within the felony speedy trial time even though an earlier charge of misdemeanor DUI had been nol-prossed and the misdemeanor speedy trial time had…
-
Bonilla v. State, 62 So. 3d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ge’s reasoning was in error, he reached the right result on the charge that is the subject of this petition. In fairness to the trial judge, the parties [*1234] failed to favor him with the dispositive authority on this point. In Nesworthy v. State, 648 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we held that a felony DUI with serious bodily injury charge may be filed within the felony speedy trial period, even though a misdemeanor DUI charge arising from the same criminal episode had been previously nolle 'prosequied,.…
-
State v. Woodruff, 654 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…a vehicle within this state and: (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages ...; or (b) The person has a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.10 percent or higher. . We agree with defendant that the holding in Nesworthy v. State, 648 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), is not binding on this issue, in view of the supreme court's subsequent pronouncement in Reed v. State, 649 So. 2d 227 (Fla.1995).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993)
- Bryant v. State, 650 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Spurlock v. The Honorable Michael F. Cycmanick, 584 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)