SHAWN MALMSBERRY, 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.
Malmsberry sought a writ of prohibition to challenge a circuit court's denial of his motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the defense's late disclosure of witnesses constituted a discovery violation that justified a continuance and waived speedy trial protections.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the discharge motion. The late disclosure of seven witnesses constituted a discovery violation by the defense that justified a continuance, and this continuance was attributable to the defense, resulting in a waiver of the speedy trial time limits.
[1] A continuance granted due to a defense discovery violation tolls the speedy trial period.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance when the defense fails to timely disclose witnesses.
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“Upon that determination, the trial court had broad discretion to fashion a remedy, including a continuance.”
Establishes that once a discovery violation is found, the trial court has broad remedial discretion under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(h).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMalmsberry was arrested on February 7, 2001 for two counts of aggravated stalking. At a July 10, 2001 pretrial conference, both parties represented th…
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
ORFINGER, R. B„ J.
Shawn Malmsberry seeks a writ of prohibition following the circuit court’s denial of his motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds. We deny the petition.
Malmsberry was arrested on February 7, 2001 on two counts of aggravated stalking. At a pretrial conference held on July 10, 2001, the State and defense counsel advised the court that the case was ready for trial and that all discovery had been completed. The court set the case for trial on July 30, 2001, two days prior to the expiration of the speedy trial period. On July 13, 2001, defense counsel filed a defense witness list listing six witnesses previously unknown to the State. A seventh defense witness was verbally provided to the State sometime thereafter. Based on the late disclosure of the defense witnesses, the State moved for a continuance of the July 30th trial to allow the newly disclosed witnesses to be deposed.1 The court granted the continuance and reset the case for trial on August 13, 2001. Subsequently, the defense filed a motion for discharge claiming that Malmsberry had not been brought to trial within the speedy trial period or the recapture period.
The trial court denied Malmsber-ry’s petition for discharge finding that the late disclosure of witnesses constituted a discovery violation by the defense. On these facts, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in finding, after adequate inquiry into the circumstances, that a discovery violation had occurred when the defense disclosed seven witnesses to the State so close to both the trial and the expiration of the speedy trial period. Upon that determination, the trial court had broad discretion to fashion a remedy, including a continuance. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(h); Hughes v. State, 542 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the continuance was attributable to the defense, resulting in a waiver of the time limits of the speedy trial rule. Id. (citing J.B. v. Korda, 436 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).
PROHIBITION DENIED.
PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. . The State should have been more mindful of the potential speedy trial problems and moved for an extension of the speedy trial period due to the late disclosure of the defense witnesses. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(1 )(6).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett v. State, 87 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…d, petitioner is entitled to discharge. PETITION GRANTED. DAVIS, J., CONCURS; ROWE, J., concurs in result only. . See, e.g., State v. Bowers, 1 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (defendant requested a continuance before trial); Malmsberry v. State, 819 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (the defense delayed disclosure of witnesses until seventeen days before trial); Zyla v. Cohen, 686 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (defense counsel waited until five days before the trial date to make a document request); and Ehn…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of J.B. v. Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 436 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Hughes v. State, 542 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)