ANDRE L. MCNEAL, 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 reversed McNeal's convictions for sale of cocaine and resisting arrest because the trial court lacked authority to sua sponte strike his speedy trial demand without a prosecuting attorney's motion.
A trial court may not sua sponte strike a defendant's demand for speedy trial; a motion by the prosecuting attorney is required.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to sua sponte strike a defendant's demand for speedy trial; the rules of criminal procedure require a motion by the prosecuting attorney.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A demand [for speedy trial] filed by the accused who has not diligently investigated his case or who is not timely prepared for trial shall be stricken as invalid upon motion by the prosecuting attorney.”
Citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(c) to establish the procedural requirement for striking a speedy trial demand.
McNeal was charged with sale of cocaine and resisting arrest without violence. He entered a no contest plea while reserving the right to appeal the de…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Andre L. McNeal appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine and resisting arrest without violence. McNeal entered a no contest plea to the charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion for discharge based on a speedy trial violation. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in sua sponte striking his demand for speedy trial. “A demand [for speedy trial] filed by the accused who has not diligently investigated his case or who is not timely prepared for trial shall be stricken as invalid upon motion by the prosecuting attorney.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(c) (emphasis added). Although the trial court’s order states that it was entered upon oral motion of the State, there is no record evidence of such motion, oral or otherwise, and the State has not been able to supplement the record with either a written or oral motion to strike. Accordingly, we reverse. See Landry v. State, 666 So. 2d 121, 125 (Fla.1995) (holding that the rules of criminal procedure do not authorize the sua sponte denial of a demand for speedy trial; motion by prosecuting attorney is required).
Reversed with directions to discharge McNeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p)(3).
FULMER and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur.