JAMES MICHAEL HAWLEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's orders extending speedy trial periods and denying discharge motion, finding no abuse of discretion and holding that issues regarding continuance and consolidation were not preserved for review after a no contest plea.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in extending the speedy trial period when exceptional circumstances exist, and issues regarding continuance and consolidation are not preserved for appellate review after a no contest plea unless dispositive of the case.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in extending the speedy trial period under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(2) when exceptional circumstances exist.
[2] Issues regarding continuance and consolidation are not preserved for appellate review after a no contest plea unless the issue is dispositive of the case.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Hawley entered a no contest plea and appealed orders relating to his speedy trial period, including two extensions of 60 days and 30 days, and 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 Period cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant James Hawley, having entered a plea of no contest, seeks review of certain court orders relating to his speedy trial period. As to the first grant extending the speedy trial period by 60 days, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an exceptional circumstance existed to justify the time extension. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(2); Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, Routly v. Florida, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); Westberry v. State, 700 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for discharge, which was made after the initial 175-day speedy trial period but before the lapse of the 60-day extension was, therefore, proper. Appellant also complains about the trial court’s grant of the state’s motions for continuance and consolidation. These rulings of the trial court are not preserved for review. A legal issue reserved for appeal after a no contest plea must be dispositive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); Stone v. State, 688 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The second grant extending the speedy trial period by 30 days is not dispositive because appellant failed to file a Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial Time as required by Rule 3.191(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The filing of the notice allows the court to make the inquiry required by Rule 3.191(p) and bring the defendant to trial if indicated. Appellant Haw-ley entered his plea of no contest before this was done.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C. J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawley v. State, 822 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…trial court erred in granting the state’s motions for continuance, consolidation, or in extending the speedy trial period a second time; we concluded these issues were not dispositive because they were not preserved for review. See Hawley v. State, 702 So. 2d 1357, 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The mandate issued January 6, 1998. In his motion for post-conviction relief, filed April 2, 1999, appellant claimed that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by assuring him that all the issues…
-
Hawley v. State, 877 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…, that Hawley did not preserve two of the three issues, because trial [*866] counsel, had failed to file a notice of expiration of speedy trial time, and, thus, the unpreserved issues could not be considered dispositive of his case. Hawley v. State, 702 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Hawley filed a 3.850 motion, claiming that his plea was involuntary, and that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to preserve the issues for appeal, because Hawley had entered into the plea agreement wi…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Stone v. State, 688 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1983)
- Dobbert v. Strickland, 468 U.S. 1220 (U.S. 1984)
- Mahoney v. United States, 468 U.S. 1220 (U.S. 1984)
- Westberry v. State, 700 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)