THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES MCKNIGHT, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of charges where defendant did not waive speedy trial rights despite agreeing to prosecution-requested continuances, as all delays were caused by the state for its own benefit.
A defendant who agrees to continuances requested by the prosecution does not waive speedy trial rights under Rule 3.191 when all delays are caused by the state for its benefit.
[1] A defendant does not waive speedy trial rights under Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, by agreeing to continuances requested by the prosecution when all de…
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 intelligenceThe defendant was charged with a crime and the prosecution requested several extensions of time, to which the defendant agreed. The trial court grante…
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 Prosecutorial Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the prosecution below, brings this appeal from an order of the trial court dated May 2, 1975, granting appellee’s, defendant below, motion to dismiss and discharge. Appellant contends that, based on the facts of this case, the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss and discharge because he had not been given a speedy trial as required by Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. In accordance with the well recognized rules that an order of the trial court on appeal is generally presumed to be correct and the one who asserts error has the burden of showing it, we have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law and Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., and conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
We find the trial court properly determined that appellee, although agreeing to the several extensions of time requested by appellant, did not waive his right to a speedy trial pursuant to Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. None of the delays were caused by appel-lee, but rather were occasioned solely by appellant for its benefit.
Affirmed.