J.W., 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 delinquency petition were insufficient to demonstrate unavailability, thus the speedy trial extension was error.
J.W. sought speedy trial discharge after the adjudicatory hearing was not held within ninety days. The trial court granted the state an extension base…
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.
Petitioner, J.W., filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking speedy trial discharge under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.090 (2002). It is undisputed that the adjudicatory hearing was not held within ninety days of the petition for delinquency as required by that rule.
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 J.W. with the delinquency petition. All three attempts were made during school hours at J.W.’s residence. All 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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…a rule 3.850 motion must be accepted as true, and that an evidentiary hearing is required if the allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record. An exception exists, however, where the allegations are “inherently incredible.” Evans v. State, 843 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that a defendant’s claim that he would not have entered his plea was “so thoroughly contrary to common sense as to be inherently incredible, and does not warrant a hearing”). In this case, appellant’s suggestion tha…
-
Capalbo v. State, 73 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that, under the circumstances of that case, the allegation that defendant would not have entered the plea was “inherently unbelievable and contrary to common sense”), rev. denied, 15 So. 3d 581 (Fla.2009); Evans v. State, 843 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that a defendant’s claim that he would not have entered his plea was “so thoroughly contrary to common sense as to be inherently incredible, and does not warrant a hearing”). Appellant admits he was aware of self-de…
-
Simon v. State, 997 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; and Remanded for Further Proceedings Consistent with this Opinion. WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur. . Appellant’s allegation that counsel’s advice coerced his plea might be inherently incredible. See Evans v. State, 843 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that defendant's claim that he would not have entered his plea was “so thoroughly contrary to common sense as to be inherently incredible, and does not warrant a hearing”). In addition, appellant may have failed to m…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.K. v. State, 778 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)