YANCEY MORRIS, 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 held that the defendant was not entitled to discharge for denial of a speedy trial.
The defendant was arrested and informed against prior to the effective date of Rule 3.191, CrPR. He sought review of his conviction and sentence, argu…
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
Appellant defendant Yancey Morris seeks review of a judgment of conviction for robbery entered after a guilty verdict in a jury trial and the 30 year sentence imposed. For reversal he has presented several points, but only his argument concerning denial of a speedy trial merits discussion.
Morris was arrested and informed against prior to the effective date of Rule 3.191, CrPR, In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., Fla. 1971, 245 So.2d 33. He contends that the 60 day rule, rather than the 180 day rule, governs so that he should be discharged. Rule 3.191 (a)(1), (2) CrPR.
Appellant is thrust upon the horns of a dilemma. First, assuming that his motion for a speedy trial filed on April 8, 1971, was insufficient to constitute a valid demand for speedy trial, then under Rule 3.191 (i) (2) his trial on June 21, 1971 was well within the 180 day limit from the March 1, 1971 effective date of that rule. Secondly, assuming that his speedy trial demand was sufficient, nevertheless, he is not entitled to discharge for failure to file a valid written motion for discharge; in fact the written motion for discharge was not *100made until July 14, 1971, about 20 days after his conviction and sentence. Gossett v. Hanlon, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 865, 868; State ex rel Hanks v. Goodman, Fla. 1971, 253 So.2d 129; Rule 3.191(d)(1).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yancey Morris v. State, 275 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 267 So. 2d 99. ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents.…
-
Schulkin v. State, 287 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…rial rule]. We find no merit in this position because the defendant never brought this contention to the attention of the trial judge by appropriate motion or argument. State v. Earnest, Fla.App. 1972, 265 So. 2d 397; Morris v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So. 2d 99; Rules 3.191(a)(1), 3.191(d)(1), CrPR.1 [*138] Next, it is urged that the trial judge erred in certain instructions relative to a reference to a confidential informant by a witness for the State. It is apparent, from a review of the entire trial tra…
-
In the Interest of T.D.B. v. Honorable Thomas S. Kirk, 468 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…, Fla.R.Juv.P. To assert those rights, a motion for discharge must be timely made and must be made prior to trial. State v. Robinson, 336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). See also, Hillburn v. State, 353 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Morris v. State, 267 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Appearance for and participation in trial without objection on speedy trial grounds is a waiver of any speedy trial violation. See, Robbins v. State, 370 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The State maintains that in any event, the…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. Terry Michael Hanks & Rudolph Frank Seymour v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1971)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 245 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1971)
- Gossett v. Hanlon, 195 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)