Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 90891,90891 |
| Citation | 715 So.2d 241 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly S266 Bobby Lee BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven Seliger of Garcia & Seliger, Quincy, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Carolyn J. Mosley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
We have for review Brown v. State, 695 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the district court certified conflict with Vallieres v. Grossman, 573 So.2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Heller v. State, 601 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In addition, the district court certified the following question to be one of great public importance:
Brown, 695 So.2d at 1277 (footnote omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution and answer the certified question by concluding that an exceptional circumstance extension made during the 5/10-day recapture window is valid. We base our conclusion on the plain language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(i).
Brown was arrested on November 30, 1994, and charged with several felonies stemming from an armed robbery. On June 7, 1995, 189 days after being arrested, Brown filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on the State's failure to bring him to trial within the 175-day speedy trial period. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 13, and set the trial for June 19. However, on June 16, the State moved for an extension based upon an exceptional circumstance pursuant to rules 3.191(i) 1 and 3.191(l ) 2 because the lead prosecutor underwent emergency surgery which would incapacitate her for at least two weeks. The judge granted the extension and set the trial for July 17, 1995, a date outside the recapture window. 3 Brown was eventually tried and convicted on all charges.
On appeal, Brown argued that his convictions should be vacated and that he should be "forever discharged" from these charges because the State violated his right to a speedy trial by not bringing him to trial within the 175-day speedy trial period or within the 5/10-day recapture window. The district court framed the issue as "whether the rule authorizes an extension of the speedy trial time when the extension is made during the recapture window (for a reason which constitutes an 'exceptional circumstance' under 3.191(l )), or whether an 'exceptional circumstances' extension is valid only when granted before expiration of the basic 175-day period." The district court affirmed the convictions, holding that the plain language of rule 3.191 authorizes an exceptional circumstance extension if the exceptional circumstance arises and is the basis for a motion for extension during either the 175-day speedy trial period or the 5/10-day recapture window. Brown v. State, 695 So.2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The district court reasoned:
Subdivision (i) provides in relevant part: "The periods of time established by this rule may be extended provided the period of time sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension was procured." No remedy is available to a defendant moreover until the court makes "the required inquiry under subdivision (j)"; subdivision (j) also refers to "periods" of time. The extension sought and obtained in the instant case occurred during the recapture window; the recapture window furthermore had not expired when the extension was procured. There are several periods of time provided for in rule 3.191. The recapture window is one of the periods of time established by the rule. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3). More importantly, however, the rule by its general language is inclusive of all periods of time provided in the rule and does not in any way limit exceptional circumstances to the basic 175-day time period. The rule does not limit an extension of time to a single period.
Brown, 695 So.2d at 1276-77 (footnote omitted).
The district court reasoned that Brown's interpretation of the rule could require an absurd result because the State would be entitled to an exceptional circumstance extension during the 175-day speedy trial period but not during the 5/10-day recapture window even for the same exceptional circumstance. Thereupon the First District certified conflict with Vallieres and Heller to the extent that those cases announced a blanket rule that a motion for exceptional circumstance extension can only be granted if filed during the 175-day speedy trial period. The First District also certified the aforementioned question.
Judge Webster dissented. He disagreed with the majority decision that the plain reading of the rule compelled its conclusion. Instead, Judge Webster reasoned that "periods of time," as provided in rule 3.191(i), is a "relatively clear" reference to the speedy trial periods set out in subdivisions (a) and (b). Based upon this reasoning, Judge Webster construed "periods of time" not to include the 5/10-day recapture window set out in subdivision (p)(3), and pointed out that every other court which had addressed the issue had so held. 4 Judge Webster added that this was not a case in which the State had proceeded diligently toward trial and merely overlooked the speedy trial deadline. Rather, this was precisely the type of case for which the speedy trial rule was designed.
We agree with the majority below that the plain language of rule 3.191(i) allows an extension of the 5/10-day recapture window if that window has not closed and that we must give effect to the rule as written. Our courts have long recognized that the rules of construction applicable to statutes also apply to the construction of rules. Syndicate Properties v. Hotel Floridian Co., 94 Fla. 899, 903, 114 So. 441, 443 (1927); Merchants' Nat'l Bank v. Grunthal, 39 Fla. 388, 394, 22 So. 685, 687 (1897). Thus, when the language to be construed is unambiguous, it must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 (Fla.1976); McDonald v. Roland, 65 So.2d 12 (Fla.1953); A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157 (1931); Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693 (1918).
Rule 3.191(i) provides that, under certain circumstances, "[t]he periods of time established by this rule may be extended provided the period sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension was procured." Contrary to Judge Webster's conclusion, we do not find any limitation in this language so that it applies only to subdivisions (a) and (b) under this rule. Rather, as plainly written, "this rule" contains three time periods: subdivision (a) provides a speedy trial period for those cases in which speedy trial is not demanded; subdivision (b) provides a speedy trial period for those cases in which a speedy trial is demanded; and subdivision (p)(3) provides a grace period for the State in those cases which eclipse the times set out in subdivisions (a) and (b). We will not write a limitation into subdivision (i) and apply it to this case.
In sum, we hold that, under rule 3.191(i), the State may move for an extension of any of the aforementioned time periods so long as the time period sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension is requested. In this case, we find that because the 10-day recapture period had not expired, the extension was valid.
Accordingly, having answered the certified question, we approve the decision below and disapprove Tascarella, Vallieres, J.T., and Heller to the extent they conflict with this opinion. We decline to review the other issue raised by Brown.
It is so ordered.
I concur with the decision and reasoning of the majority in this case.
I write to express my continuing concern about this rule and its implementation through the decisions of this Court. See Reed v. State, 649 So.2d 227 (Fla.1995); Dorian v. State, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); and Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994). In each of the cases cited, I dissented as to what I viewed as this Court's interpretation and application of the speedy trial rule in a way that impedes rather than facilitates adjudication of cases on their merits.
Once again, I call attention to the fact that the problem with rule 3.191 is that the State's violation of the rule results in the defendant being forever discharged of all possible charges arising out of the criminal episode. Reed. This effectively reduces the statute of limitations for a crime once the defendant is taken into custody on any criminal charge arising out of the criminal episode. As Justice Overton pointed out in his dissent in Reed, this Court's interpretation of our speedy trial rule has made it a substantive provision. Therefore, the rule as interpreted by this Court provides a right, not a rule of procedure, and for this reason, it is an unconstitutional invasion of legislative authority. See art. II, § 3, Fla. Const.
Under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974(Act), 5 a speedy trial violation in federal court does not necessarily result in the defendant being forever discharged. Once a violation is shown under the Act, the judge retains the discretion to dismiss the case with or without prejudice based on at least three factors: the severity of the crime, the facts and circumstances of the speedy trial violation, and the impact of reprosecution on the Act and on the administration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...delay is taken into account as one relevant factor in evaluating the overall voluntariness of the confession. 9. See also Brown v. State, 715 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla.1998) (“Our courts have long recognized that the rules of construction applicable to statutes also apply to the construction of r......
-
State v. Rosario
...courts will give a statute its plain and ordinary meaning." Weber v. Dobbins, 616 So. 2d 956, 958 (Fla. 1993) ; see also Brown v. State, 715 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 1998) ("[T]he rules of construction applicable to statutes also apply to the construction of rules."). As our Court has previous......
-
White v. State, 3D09-1403
...delay is taken into account as one relevant factor in evaluating the overall voluntariness of the confession. 9. See also Brown v. State, 715 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 1998) ("Our courts have long recognized that the rules of construction applicable to statutes also apply to the construction of......
-
Bulgin v. State
...642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); see also State v. Robbins, 863 So.2d 168 (Fla.2003); Brown v. State, 715 So.2d 241 (Fla.1998). I dissented from or concurred in these decisions, citing my concern that the majority was creating substantive law in a procedur......