Deiches v. Kaney, 79-1369

Decision Date22 August 1979
Docket NumberNo. 79-1369,79-1369
Citation375 So.2d 584
PartiesDrew DEICHES, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Frank N. KANEY, Circuit Judge, Orange County, Florida, Respondent. /NT 4-11.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Leon P. Cheek, III, Altamonte Springs, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary E. Marsden, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge.

Defendant seeks a writ of prohibition contending the trial court erroneously denied his motion for discharge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 governing speedy trial. We find that the time for speedy trial has expired and grant the writ.

Defendant was arrested and taken into custody on October 4, 1978, on charges of loitering and prowling in violation of Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1977), and possession of a concealed weapon in violation of Section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1977). The events giving rise to this arrest are clearly set forth in an affidavit of the arresting officer. This officer was advised by radio that a subject might be trying to pass a forged prescription at a particular drug store. The officer went to the drug store at which time an individual was walking toward the door. The pharmacist informed the officer that the individual walking out of the store was the one who had tried to pass the forged prescription. The officer immediately exited and heard a car engine start. The defendant was seen driving away at a high rate of speed. In his haste, he turned into an alley behind the drug store which happened to be a dead end. The arresting officer stopped him there and arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon and for loitering and prowling. The suspected forged prescription was retrieved from the pharmacist and taken into evidence in regard to the case.

Apparently, defendant was not prosecuted on the loitering and weapon charges which were misdemeanors. However, on December 18, 1978, an information was filed charging petitioner with unlawfully attempting to acquire possession of a controlled substance by attempting to pass the forged prescription in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 893. Defendant moved for discharge pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 after more than 180 days elapsed from the date of his initial arrest. The trial court denied the motion. We find this to have been error. In State v. Thaddies, 364 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), this Court stated:

In similar circumstances this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Irby v. State, AT-31
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 1984
    ...by rule 3.191(a)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Carter v. State, 432 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Deiches v. State [Kanly ], 375 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); State v. Kelly, 407 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The entire thrust of Irby's brief on this point was that distinct crim......
  • State v. Baynham
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 2011
    ...to be sure, but they were not the result of the same conduct or episode.” Id. at 690. Appellee relies heavily on Deiches v. Kaney, 375 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). In Deiches, officers were advised by radio that there was a person trying to pass forged prescriptions at a local drug store.......
  • State v. Pelham, 5D12–851.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 2012
    ...410 So.2d 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, as pointed out by Pelham, this was not the test that we applied in Deiches v. Kaney, 375 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), the primary case upon which Pelham relies in his argument on appeal. In Deiches, law enforcement was dispatched to a local drug......
  • Bates v. Keating, 81-60
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1981
    ...So.2d 431 (Fla. 1973). Indeed, we have done so in previous cases. Gordon v. Savage, 383 So.2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Deiches v. Kaney, 375 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). In the case at hand, the sixty-day period had expired, and no order of extension had been rendered. Therefore, petition......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT