Gordon v. Leffler In and For Seminole County, 86-1253
| Decision Date | 21 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1253,86-1253 |
| Citation | 495 So.2d 200,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1840 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1840 Wilson GORDON, Jr., Petitioner, v. The Honorable Kenneth M. LEFFLER, Circuit Judge, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, In and For SEMINOLE COUNTY, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Christopher Ray, Sanford, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Belle Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
Gordon files a petition for writ of prohibition seeking discharge under the speedy trial rule 1 from prosecution for criminal charges involving sale and possession of a controlled substance, which stem from his arrest on December 5, 1984. Based on the record before us, we issue the writ.
On December 5, 1984, law enforcement officials came to Gordon's home to question him about the sale of a controlled substance. The transcript of the record made at Gordon's hearing on his motion for discharge contains conflicting statements by the witnesses as to whether or not he was arrested for the sale and possession offenses that day. However, the trial court entered an order on July 14, 1986, which declared that Gordon had been arrested on December 5, 1984. He found:
This cause came on to be heard July 9, 1986, during which the court received testimony of the Defendant and the officers who arrested the Defendant Dec. 5, 1984. (Emphasis supplied).
We are bound by the trial court's fact findings that an arrest occurred on December 5, 1984. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Griffin v. State, 474 So.2d 777 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, Griffin v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 908 (1986), and Snow v. State, 399 So.2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), where no arrest occurred.
Under applicable case law, the date of the arrest triggers the running of the time periods under the speedy trial rule within which a defendant must be brought to trial by the state, or be discharged from prosecution. 2 Gordon filed a motion for discharge on July 3, 1986. A hearing was set on July 8, 1986, and the court reserved its ruling. Thereafter, the motion was denied on July 14, 1986, by the above quoted order. Gordon's trial was then scheduled for July 22, 1986.
We need not decide in this case whether or not the revised speedy trial rule, effective January 1, 1985, or the prior speedy trial rule applies to this case, because the result under both is the same. 3 Under the prior rule, Gordon was not brought to trial within 180 days following his arrest. His motion for discharge was filed after the 180 days had run. Under the revised rule, the state failed to bring him to trial within fifteen days after the date his motion for discharge was filed. Both rules mandate that the trial court lost jurisdiction to prosecute petitioner for the offense for which he was arrested on December 5, 1984. 4
Accordingly, we issue the writ of prohibition and order that petitioner be discharged.
WRIT ISSUED.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 5D99-820.
...speedy trial considerations. Adams v. State, 659 So.2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA), cause dismissed, 662 So.2d 341 (Fla.1995); Gordon v. Leffler, 495 So.2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So.2d 327 (Fla.1987). A formal arrest, complete with fingerprinting and formal charges, is not always n......
-
Underwood v. Johnson, 93-1944
...of whether the judge hears the motion." See Massey v. Graziano, 564 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Gordon v. Leffler ex rel. Seminole County, 495 So.2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So.2d 327 (Fla.1987); Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So.2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA The attorney general, on be......
-
Baxter v. Downey, 90-02958
...as affording the state a fifteen-day grace period to escape an otherwise valid motion for discharge. See, e.g., Gordon v. Leffler, 495 So.2d 200 (5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So.2d 327 (Fla.1987). Fifteen days from Baxter's motion would have been Tuesday, October 9, 1990, or two days pri......
-
Lasker v. Parker, s. 87-1167
...an opportunity to bring the defendant to trial within fifteen days of the date of filing of the motion for discharge. Gordon v. Leffler, 495 So.2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So.2d 327 (Fla.1987); but see Ricci v. Parker, No. 87-1954 (Fla. 2d DCA September 4, 1987) [12 F.L.W. ......