ANTHONY DUANE CUMMINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant's conviction was affirmed because charges involving distinct drug-related acts did not constitute a single criminal episode for speedy trial purposes, even though all charges related to illicit drugs.
Charges arising from distinct acts and distinct crimes do not constitute the same criminal episode for speedy trial purposes merely because they involve related subject matter.
[1] Multiple charges involving distinct acts and distinct crimes do not constitute a single criminal episode for speedy trial purposes merely because they relate to the same…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Crimes are deemed to be part of the same criminal episode so as to trigger the running of the speedy trial period when they are based on substantially the same conduct, even though the conduct may give rise to different consequences.”
Defining the standard for when multiple crimes constitute a single criminal episode for speedy trial purposes.
Appellant was charged with multiple drug-related offenses. He challenged his conviction arguing that the charges arose from the same criminal episode …
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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges his conviction based on an alleged speedy trial violation. He argues that his conviction was based on charges that arose from the same criminal episode as charges for which the speedy trial period had expired. We conclude that, although the charges all were related to illicit drugs, each involved distinct acts and distinct crimes. Therefore, they did not arise from the same criminal episode for speedy trial purposes. See State v. Banks, 50 So.3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (defendant’s charges for dealing in stolen property and possession of firearm with altered serial number, though related to charge of burglary involving theft of firearms, not part of same criminal episode); Clevenger v. State, 967 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“Crimes are deemed to be part of the same criminal episode so as to trigger the running of the speedy trial period when they are based on substantially the same conduct, even though the conduct may give rise to different consequences.”); State v. Hanna, 858 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[W]hen different crimes are involved, they are not deemed a part of the same criminal episode unless they are based on substantially the same acts.”).
AFFIRMED.
TORPY, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Domonique T. Pelham, 99 So. 3d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…the original arrest and charge for the initial offense” is insufficient to meet the “same conduct” test). Our court has consistently applied this “same act” or “same conduct” test in more recent years. Hanna, 858 So. 2d at 1250; Cummings v. State, 64 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); State v. Banks, 50 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Clevenger v. State, 967 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); State v. Deratany, 410 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, as pointed out by Pel-ham, this was not the test that we…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roxie Lynn Hanna, 858 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Clevenger v. State, 967 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. Sheldon Lamar Banks, 50 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)