JERRAME HOESTEINE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of prohibition, dismissing a cocaine possession charge because the defendant was not brought to trial within the speedy trial period. The court rejected the State's argument that the defendant waived his speedy trial right when his name was erroneously placed on a change of plea docket by the clerk.
A defendant should not be held responsible for a clerk's error in placing his name on a change of plea docket, even if the court signed the docket. The trial court should have scheduled trial within the 15-day 'recapture' period provided by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the defendant's speedy trial right was not waived.
[1] A defendant is not responsible for a clerk's error in placing their case on the wrong docket, even if the court signs the docket.
[2] A court should schedule a trial within the 15-day "recapture" period provided by the rules when a speedy trial violation occurs.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“under the facts of this case, we do not believe defendant should be held responsible for the clerk's error even though the court signed the change of plea docket. The court should have scheduled trial within the 15-day 'recapture' period provided by the rules.”
Establishes the core holding that the defendant cannot be charged with responsibility for a clerk's administrative error in docket placement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Hoesteine was charged with possession of cocaine and was not brought to trial within 203 days, prompting him to file notice of expiration of…
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 Recapture Period cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is granted and the action is dismissed for failure to bring the defendant to trial within the appropriate speedy trial period.
Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine. When he was not brought to trial within 203 days, he filed a notice of expiration of the speedy trial period. The State contended that since defendant had asked to change his plea and had been placed on the “change of plea” docket but did not appear, a continuance should be charged to him thus waiving his right to speedy trial. Defense counsel denied that she ever requested to change defendant’s plea and that the clerk erred by placing defendant on the wrong docket.
The court seems to have accepted the fact that defendant was not responsible for his name being placed on the change of plea docket but determined that since defendant did not object, presumably after notice of the change, he should be held responsible for the clerk’s error. Defense counsel candidly admitted that she could not remember whether she received the notice and objected or whether she ap peared at the hearing to object. This is certainly understandable based on case loads and the passage of time. But she represented to the court that she always appears at the change of plea docket call if she has requested a change of plea. She discovered after the hearing, but prior to filing this petition, that defendant’s case was not called during the change of plea docket, indicating that the error was reported or discovered prior to the docket call. In any event, under the facts of this case, we do not believe defendant should be held responsible for the clerk’s error even though the court signed the change of plea docket. The court should have scheduled trial within the 15-day “recapture” period provided by the rules. See Fla. R.Crim. P. S.191(p)(3).
Since according to defense counsel errors are often made in placing names on the change of plea docket, a better procedure should be devised to show when the request to change plea is made and by whom. If a clerk’s notation will not suffice, then written change of plea requests should be required.
WRIT GRANTED with instruction to dismiss the case for failure to comply with the speedy trial rule.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.