ROBERT KANTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court affirmed the felony conviction, rejecting the argument that an amendment to Florida's speedy trial rule constituted an ex post facto law.
An amendment to Florida's speedy trial rule does not constitute an ex post facto law and does not require discharge of a defendant.
[1] An amendment to a procedural rule governing speedy trial does not constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Constitution.
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 intelligenceKanter was convicted of both a felony and a misdemeanor in the Criminal Court of Record. He appealed the felony conviction on the ground that the tria…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal the appellant seeks review of two convictions in the Criminal Court of Record. One was a conviction of a felony; the other was a conviction of a misdemeanor.1 The only point urged for reversal as to the felony conviction was the failure to discharge the defendant in the trial court pursuant to the provisions of the “speedy trial rule”, the contention being made that an amendment to the rule promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida in August 1971 [see: Rule 3.191, CrPR, 33 F.S.A.] amounted to an ex post facto law. We find this point not to be well taken. Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So. 681; Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26, 101 So. 233; Walter Denson & Son v. Nelson, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 120.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the felony conviction here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…e 1985 date of the motion for discharge is determinative and therefore deny prohibition. There is no dispute that the speedy trial rule is entirely procedural in nature, see State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1971); Ranter v. State, 265 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and that the version in effect at the time of the proceeding in question controls the result. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1983). Indeed, the very order effecting the amendments…
-
Williams v. The Honorable Sidney B. Shapiro, 575 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ional claim arising out of an allegedly unreasonable pre-information delay or otherwise— we agree with the trial court that he is not entitled to relief under Rule 3.191. See State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1971); Kanter v. State, 265 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The legal question before us is the effect on that issue of the motion for discharge filed on December 29, 1989, when there was no action pending in the circuit court. It is clear that it had no effect at all, and certainly not t…
-
Evenson v. State, 277 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…g reversal relates to the constitutionality of an amendment to the speedy trial rule promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida. The contentions made [*593] herein were substantially presented to the Third District in Kanter v. State, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 742, and were rejected. We find that the holding in the Kan-ter case is applicable and that defendant’s contentions are without merit. For the reasons hereinabove set forth the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walter Denson & SON & Va. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 88 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1956)
- Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1893)
- Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1924)
- Coykendall v. State, 230 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Merrill v. State, 225 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Maninger v. State, 254 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)