STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
O.L., A CHILD, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by dismissing the delinquency petition without affording the State the ten-day recapture period required by rule.
The adjudicatory hearing on a delinquency petition was not commenced within the speedy trial period. Following a motion for discharge, the trial court…
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, J.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its delinquency petition involving O.L., a-child, on speedy trial grounds. Because the trial judge failed to afford the State the opportunity to bring the matter to trial within the ten-day recapture period provided for by rule, we reverse.
The relevant facts are - not in dispute. The adjudicatory hearing on the State’s delinquency petition was not commenced within the speedy trial period set forth by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.090(d)(6). As a result, O.L.’s counsel filed a motion for discharge and a timely hearing was conducted. At that hearing, it was apparent that none of the exceptions set forth in rule 8.090(d) applied. Consequently, the trial court was required to apply the remedy set forth in rule 8.090(m) by permitting the State ten days within which to try the charge. If the State failed to commence trial within ten days through no fault attributable to O.L., then the court would have been required to grant the motion for discharge. State v. B.S.S., 890 So. 2d 487, 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Here, the trial court dismissed the charge without allowing the State the benefit of the ten-day recapture period. O.L. argues that the State failed to preserve that argument for review by not requesting the benefit of the ten-day recapture period. We reject that contention, as it was the trial court’s clear obligation under the rule to set the matter for trial within ten days following the hearing on O.L’s motion for discharge.
We vacate the order of dismissal and remand this matter for further proceedings.
VACATE ORDER; REMAND.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.L.S., 932 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…after the defendant is arrested and waiting until after the speedy trial period has expired to file formal charges). In closing, we note that the facts presented in this case are distinctly different from those that were presented in State v. O.L., 921 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and, as a result, the recapture provision of rule 8.090, which was applied in O.L., is not applicable in this case. To that end, in O.L., the State had filed a delinquency petition against the juvenile before the speedy time per…
Authorities Cited
- State v. B.S.S., 890 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)