REGINALD HOLSTON, 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 an evidentiary hearing is required to determine if the defendant was unavailable for trial, which is necessary to resolve his speedy trial discharge claim.
Reginald Holston petitioned for a writ of prohibition, alleging his speedy trial time had run. He filed a notice of expiration and a motion for discha…
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 Motion For Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Holston petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, alleging that the speedy trial time has run and he is entitled to discharge. We grant the petition in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether discharge is proper. Holston was arrested on May 24, 2006 for several felony offenses, and on November 25, 2006, he filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial. On December 10, 2006, fifteen days later, he filed a motion for discharge. His case has not been brought to trial, and no hearing has been held on his motion. He has alleged a facially sufficient claim.
However, the state argues that Holston has been unavailable for trial within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(k). The state has the burden of showing the defendant was unavailable. See Dixon v. State, 901 So. 2d 384, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Holston contends that he was not unavailable because he was in custody in another coun ty when the arraignments were scheduled, and he argues the state had constructive knowledge of his whereabouts. See Jones v. State, 578 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The state challenges this, and resolution of this issue requires an evidentiary hearing.
If the trial court determines that Holston was unavailable, then he is not entitled to discharge, and the failure to hold a timely hearing pursuant to rule 3.191(p)(3) is irrelevant. See State v. Martinez, 586 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Harris v. State, 400 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). If, on the other hand, the court determines Holston was available and he did not otherwise waive his speedy trial rights, the motion for discharge should be granted.
Accordingly, this case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Holston’s motion for discharge and the state’s motion to strike.
GUNTHER, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutchinson v. State, 133 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ility, the accused must establish, by competent proof, availability during the term.” Thus, it is the State’s initial burden to present evidence tending to show that a defendant was unavailable for trial. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(k); Holston v. State, 958 So. 2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “Proof that the defendant made himself ... unavailable can be found by the trial court if the defendant, or his counsel, fails to attend a proceeding required by the rules or required by notice of the court.” Dixon v. Stat…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 259 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ns. Petitioner’s argument that the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the State has the burden of showing unavailability for trial lacks merit. The cases cited in the petition are distinguishable. In Holston v. State, 958 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the issue of the defendant’s unavailability was not clear from the record and an evidentiary hearing was required. Id. at 1057-58 (requiring an evidentiary hearing where defendant alleged he was being held in another county and…
Authorities Cited
- Delano B. Harris v. State of Fla. & Honorable C. Welborn Daniel, 400 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cliff Ross Dixon v. State, 901 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- State v. Martinez, 586 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)