INEZ HOGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1974-11-07
No. V-237
JOHNSON, J., concurs., SPECTOR, J., dissents without opinion.
305 So. 2d 835 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1974) Caution
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

Inez Hogan was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed her conviction, finding that the trial court violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 by failing to try her within 180 days of custody.


Holding

The trial court violated Hogan's right to speedy trial. Although the initial two-month delay was attributable to her own waiver of speedy trial rights, the state failed to demonstrate that the subsequent six-month delay was due to exceptional circumstances justifying the continuance as required by F.R.Cr.P. 3.191(f).


Headnotes

[1] A defendant's right to a speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 is violated when the state fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying…

[2] Delays in trial occasioned by conflicts of interest between co-defendants and the subsequent need for separate counsel may not be attributed to the defendant for speedy t…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(1) provides that every person charged by information with a felony shall be brought to trial within 180 days after being taken into custody as a result of the criminal episode.”

Establishes the applicable speedy trial rule and the 180-day requirement that was violated

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Hogan was arrested on May 15, 1973, and informed against on May 17, 1973, for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and carrying a concealed weapon. Sh…

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.


Opinion of the Court
RAWLS, Chief Judge.

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

Appellant has been found guilty of possession of a concealed firearm and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. Notice of appeal was filed to this Court, and appellant’s public defender lawyer has filed a brief in which he says the trial court committed no reversible error. Appellant has filed a brief in her own behalf in which she sets forth what we consider to be the sole meritorious point on appeal, i. e., that appellant’s right to speedy trial as provided by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 has been violated.

The facts pertinent to this contention reveal that appellant was arrested on May IS, 1973, and informed against on May 17, 1973, for the alleged crimes of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and carrying a concealed weapon. Arraignment and plea was held on May 30, 1973, at which time the public defender was appointed to represent appellant and a co-defendant. The case was originally set for trial on June 25, 1973. At that time appellant’s court-appointed attorney waived the right to speedy trial and requested that the trial be continued. The case was reset for August 20, 1973, at which time the public defender’s office brought to the attention of the trial court that there was a conflict between the defense of appellant and a co-defendant; both of whom were being represented by the public defender’s office. At this juncture the public defender’s office was discharged as to the co-defendant and the trial was rescheduled for October 29, 1973. When October 29, 1973, arrived, no private attorney had yet been appointed to represent the co-defendant so the court appointed a private attorney and continued the trial of both. The case was reset for November 26, 1973. Apparently on that date, the private attorney who had been appointed to represent the co-defendant moved that the cases be severed and the matter passed on. The record also indicates that on that date the cases were severed. Appellant’s cause was set for trial on January 28, 1974, but the record reveals that the matter was passed over due to a crowded court docket. Appellant was finally tried and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon on February 25, 1974.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(1) provides that every person charged by information with a felony shall be brought to trial within 180 days after being taken into custody as a result of the criminal episode. Appellant’s trial did not commence until 286 days after she was taken into custody. The record reflects that the initial delay of the trial from June 25, 1973, until August 20, 1973, was occasioned by appellant waiving her right to speedy trial and requesting that the case be continued. The ensuing six months delay from August 20, 1973, to the trial date February 25, 1974, was due to a conflict in the defense of appellant and a co-defendant by the public defender’s office; failure of the trial court to appoint a private attorney to represent the co-defendant; decision of the co-defendant’s private counsel to sever the cases; and a crowded court docket. The record is void of any showing by the state that the enumerable causes for this six months delay were such exceptional circumstances which justify appellant’s trial being continued pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 3.191(f). Absent such a showing by the state that the six months delay in trying appellant was due to exceptional circumstances which justify the delay, this Court must reverse the jury conviction and decree that appellant be set free as her right to speedy trial as provided by F.R.Cr.P. 3.191 has been violated; Riggins and McGill v. State, 301 So. 2d 124 (consolidated for purposes of appeal), opinion filed August 8, 1974.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, J., concurs.

SPECTOR, J., dissents without opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hammock v. State, 330 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
    …state now asserts demonstrates that appellant was not in fact ready for trial. We previously held in like circumstances that the discharge of counsel is not an enumerated cause for tolling the speedy trial rule under Rule 3.191(f). Hogan v. State, 305 So. 2d 835 (1st DCA Fla. 1974) cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1975). A demonstration of unpreparedness for trial which is developed after the 180-day period has elapsed, and which has no record support during the 180-day period, does not toll the speedy tr…
  • State v. Inez Hogan, 312 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1975)
    …Certiorari denied. 305 So. 2d 835. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., dissent.…
  • State v. Prince Albert Lewis, 361 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
    …ischarged because 180 days had passed from the last date set for trial, January 19. But because of the appellees’ waiver of their right to a speedy trial, no such 180 day time schedule was in effect. The trial court cited the case of Hogan v. State, 305 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied Fla., 312 So. 2d 757, in its orders of discharge. Hogan held that where there was no proper justification by the state for a lengthy delay in bringing the defendant to trial, a defendant would be entitled to dischar…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw