STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN MAURICE MCINTYRE, 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.
A criminal defendant who waives speedy trial by a last-minute motion for psychiatric evaluation cannot subsequently obtain a discharge under the speedy trial rule without a constitutional claim or subsequent procedural demand.
The defendant was charged with sexual battery on a child. He moved for a psychiatric evaluation, which the trial court noted constituted a waiver of h…
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 Waiver Of Speedy Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
The State has appealed the trial court’s order of discharge of the defendant McIntyre (charged with four counts of sexual battery on a child under twelve) based upon the trial court’s finding that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.
The legal issue presented is whether a .criminal defendant who waives speedy trial by a last-minute motion for a psychiatric evaluation1 can subsequently obtain a discharge under the speedy trial rule in the absence of any constitutional claim and without the subsequent filing of any procedural demand for speedy trial. The answer to that question is no. See State v. Naveira, 873 So.2d 300 (Fla.2004); Szembruch v. State, 910 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Gibson, 783 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
This case is distinguishable from State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993), which is relied upon by the Appellee. In Agee there was no waiver by the defendant of his procedural light to a speedy trial. Given the instant waiver and absence of subsequent demand for a speedy trial, and despite an intervening nolle pros and refilling, we agree with the State that this action was not barred.
REVERSED and REMANDED for trial.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Naveira, 873 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2004)
- Szembruch v. State, 910 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- State v. Gibson, 783 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Anglia Jacs & Co., Inc. v. Dubin, 783 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Thomas, 988 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)