STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LOUIS KOVACH, 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's appeal of a speedy trial discharge is reversed and remanded because the trial court relied on proffers rather than testimony to determine whether the defendant voluntarily removed himself from jurisdiction, which would toll speedy trial time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(e).
A trial court's order discharging a defendant for speedy trial violation must be set aside and remanded for a hearing with live testimony when the record is unclear whether the defendant voluntarily removed himself from jurisdiction, which would toll speedy trial time.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(e), time does not count toward speedy trial when an accused voluntarily removes himself from the court's jurisdiction or ma…
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 intelligenceAfter the defendant was located in Ohio, the trial court discharged him for speedy trial violation, finding that the state failed to follow through wi…
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 Unavailability For Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the state from an order of discharge under the Speedy Trial Rule.
It is difficult to state the pertinent dates and facts with particularity because no witnesses testified at the hearing on the motion for discharge. The judge made his ruling based on proffers of what the witnesses would testify made by both attorneys. Suffice it to say, the record clearly reflects that the judge entered the order of discharge because he was of the view that after the appellee was located in Ohio the speedy trial time ran out when the state failed to follow through with extradition.
If the appellee failed to voluntarily waive extradition, this case would be governed by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e) which provides that an accused is not entitled to compute for speedy trial purposes the time which elapses when he voluntarily removes himself from the jurisdiction of the court or otherwise acts to make himself unavailable for trial. Cf. O’Bryan v. State, 326 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Since the record leaves so much doubt as to what really occurred, the order of discharge is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded with directions to have a further hearing at which time testimony can be taken toward developing whether the appellee was be entitled to discharge for failure to provide him with a speedy trial.
McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 409 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…on to suppress is hereby set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to have a further hearing at which time testimony can be taken toward developing whether the police had probable cause to make the seizure in question. See State v. Kovach, 350 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Cave v. State of Fla. & Hon. Charles E. Miner, 389 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…a mistrial. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ prohibiting retrial upon the same grounds raised in his motion for discharge denied by the trial court. In resolving this cause, we find Rule 3.191(e), Fla.R.Crim.P., governs. See State v. Kovach, 350 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). In pertinent part, Rule 3.191(e) states: If an accused . . . acts to make himself unavailable for trial, the right to trial within the time herein provided shall on motion by the State be voidable by the court in the interests…
Authorities Cited
- O'Bryan v. State, 326 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)