JORGE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
Rodriguez sought a writ of prohibition claiming the State violated his right to a speedy trial by failing to timely provide discovery and that the trial court erred in denying his discharge motion. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that Rodriguez waived his speedy trial protection by failing to seek immediate relief when discovery was overdue and by not indicating readiness to proceed at the continuance hearing.
The court held that the defendant waived his speedy trial right by failing to file a motion to compel discovery before May 23, 2003, and by not informing the trial judge that he was ready to proceed to trial at the continuance hearing. The trial court correctly characterized the continuance as joint rather than as charged against the State alone.
[1] A joint continuance granted by the court tolls the speedy trial period for both the State and the defendant.
[2] A defendant seeking to preserve their speedy trial rights must actively seek relief from the court when discovery is overdue and the State is not ready for trial.
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“The defendant did not file a motion to compel discovery prior to May 23, 2003, and failed to inform the trial judge at the May 23, 2003, hearing that he was ready to proceed to trial at that time.”
Establishes the defendant's failure to preserve speedy trial rights by not seeking immediate relief when discovery was overdue or indicating readiness to proceed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was arrested on February 11, 2003, and charged with trafficking in amphetamines on March 13, 2003. He requested discovery on March 13 and ag…
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 Discovery Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Defendant seeks a writ of prohibition claiming the State failed to bring him to a speedy trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge. We deny the defendant’s petition for writ of prohibition.
The defendant was arrested on February 11, 2003.
On March 13, 2003, the State charged him by information with trafficking in amphetamines. On that same date, his counsel made a written demand for discovery. The State failed to provide the discovery and the defendant made a second request for discovery on April 18, 2003. At the May 23, 2003, calendar sounding, the State acknowledged that it had not yet provided defense counsel with discovery, and handed discovery to defense counsel in open court. The State said it was not ready to proceed to trial. The court ordered a joint continuance and set the case for report for July 25, 2003. The natural speedy trial period expired on August 5, 2003. Defendant filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial time on September 4, 2003, and the trial court struck the notice due to the May 23, 2003, joint continuance.
Defendant argues that he did not waive his right to a speedy trial because the May 23, 2003, joint continuance should have been charged only against the State.
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition. The defendant did not file a motion to compel discovery prior to May 23, 2003, and failed to inform the trial judge at the May 23, 2003, hearing that he was ready to proceed to trial at that time. The defendant filed a motion to compel discovery several months after the sounding, indicating that the defendant was not ready for trial in May. If the defendant both needed the discovery in question and wanted to keep the speedy trial date, it was imperative for defense counsel to have sought immediate relief from the court once discovery was overdue.
Therefore, the court was correct in charging the continuance as a joint continuance and in later denying the defendant’s motion for discharge. See State v. Guzman, 697 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (Cope, J., specially concurring).
Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKENNEY v. State, 967 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…o so. We therefore conclude that the trial court committed no error in characterizing the continuance as a joint continuance and in denying the motion for final discharge. State v. Naveira, 873 So. 2d 300, 306 (Fla. [*954] 2004); Rodriguez v. State, 933 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). II. State’s Closing Argument McKenney argues that certain comments by the State during its closing argument were prejudicial and improper, and that the trial court erred by denying a defense motion for mistrial after the commen…
-
State v. Valdez, 44 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…CA 1997). Moreover, if Valdez “both needed the discovery in question and wanted to keep the speedy trial date, it was imperative for defense counsel to have sought immediate relief from the court once discovery was overdue.” See Rodriguez v. State, 933 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Colby v. McNeill, 595 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (noting defense counsel’s “diligent” efforts to obtain belated discovery). Urging the trial court to charge the continuance to the State, Valdez’s counsel co…
-
State v. Wilson, 164 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…f expiration of speedy trial time, that he is ready for trial while knowing that substantial discovery violations have been ongoing for several weeks and not seeking judicial intervention beforehand. See Valdez, 44 So. 3d at 186; Rodriguez v. State, 933 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (failure of defense to file a motion to compel discovery before a joint continuance waived speedy trial). Ultimately, because the record does not show that a State-charged continuance outside the recapture window was requir…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Guzman, 697 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)