R.K., A CHILD, 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 court held that the state's attempts to serve the juvenile were insufficient to justify an extension of the speedy trial period.
Juvenile R.K. sought discharge for violation of speedy trial rules after the adjudicatory hearing was not held within ninety days of his arrest. The 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 Florida Rule Of Juvenile Procedure 8.090 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juvenile R.K. filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking speedy trial discharge under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.090 (2000). It is undisputed that the adjudicatory hearing was not held within ninety days of his arrest, as required by that rule.1
The trial court granted the state an extension of the speedy trial period based upon its showing that it had made three unsuccessful attempts to serve R.K. with the delinquency petition. A1 three attempts were made during school hours at R.K.’s residence. A1 three times, the process server found no one at home.
The state’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that it made diligent efforts to serve R.K. The state therefore failed to demonstrate that he was unavailable within the meaning of rule 8.090(d)(4) and it was error for the trial court to extend the speedy trial period. See In Interest of M.A., 483 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); V.C. v. Ferguson, 422 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), aff'd, 427 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1983). The petition for writ of prohibition is granted. The trial court is directed to discharge R.K.
POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . We reject the state's argument that the speedy trial period began to run on the later date when the delinquency petition was filed. The state cites State v. Olivo, 759 So. 2d 647 (Fla.2000), which it claims had the effect of amending rule 8.090(a) to delete the provision that runs the speedy trial period from the date of arrest, if that is the earlier date. The Olivo decision considered only whether rule 8.090 applied to a juvenile who was charged as an adult. It is inapplicable to R.K., who was charged by a delinquency petition and whose case remained in the juvenile division.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.D. v. State, 817 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…y trial expired. Counsel was not appointed for him until the arraignment yet another month later. Neither defense counsel nor petitioner can be faulted for the delay in this ease. See D.C. v. State, 807 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); R.K. v. State, 778 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct the trial court to discharge D.D. POLEN, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
A.L. v. State, 787 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…otion and set the case for calendar call, prompting this petition. We first reject the state’s contention that under State v. Olivo, 759 So. 2d 647 (Fla.2000), the speedy trial period began to run only when the petition was filed. In R.K. v. State, 778 So. 2d 1098, 1098 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we distinguished Olivo and determined that the speedy trial period commenced upon the child’s arrest. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(a). In this case, the speedy trial period began to run on May 23, 2000, and expired on Au…
-
J.W. v. State, 843 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…nstrate that it made diligent efforts to serve J.W. The state, therefore, failed to demonstrate that he was unavailable within the meaning of rule 8.090(d)(4) and it was error for the trial court to extend the speedy trial period. See R.K. v. State, 778 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted). The petition for writ of prohibition is granted. The trial court is directed to discharge J.W. POLEN, C.J., FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ferguson v. V.C., 427 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1983)
- A & E Int'l Enters., Inc. v. Star Ceiling & Floors, Inc., 422 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- V.C. v. The Honorable Ralph B. Ferguson, Jr., 422 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Olivo, 759 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2000)
- In the Interest of M.A., 483 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)