Gue v. State, 73--1036
| Decision Date | 03 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1036,73--1036 |
| Citation | 297 So.2d 135 |
| Parties | Susan M. GUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Paul C. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was charged originally with possession of marijuana in an amount constituting a misdemeanor. The state nolle prossed this charge and filed a felony charge for possession of narcotics paraphernalia, but failed to bring appellant to trial within 180 days of the date when appellant was 'taken into custody as a result of the conduct or criminal episode giving rise to the crime charged.' CrPR 3.191(a)(1), 33 F.S.A. We find nothing in this record to constitute an exception to the speedy trial rule. While it is true, as the trial judge pointed out, that at arraignment the defendant might have called to the state's attention that the case was set for trial beyond the 180 days, we find nothing in the rule which places the burden of compliance elsewhere than on the state. There being no waiver or other circumstances justifying extension, denial of the motion to discharge was error. See State ex rel. Gutierrez v. Baker, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 470; cf. State ex rel. Green v. Patterson, Fla.App.2d 1973, 279 So.2d 362, in which the delay was attributable to the accused, a circumstance not shown on this record.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bulgin v. State
...and then back to a felony did not alter the running of the speedy trial period from the original arrest date. See also Gue v. State, 297 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In [State ex rel. Williams v.] Cowart, [281 So.2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)] there was a mistrial, after which charges were ame......
-
Pelky v. State, No. SC03-2217 (FL 5/19/2005)
...and then back to a felony did not alter the running of the speedy trial period from the original arrest date. See also Gue v. State, 297 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In Cowart, there was a mistrial, after which charges were amended. After the expiration of the 90 days under Rule 3.191(g),......
-
Stuart v. State
...of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (Stuart v. State, 339 So.2d 659), which conflicts with decisions in Gue v. State, 297 So.2d 135 (Fla.2d DCA 1974) and State ex rel. Flowers v. Goodman, 241 So.2d 457 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(......
-
Weed v. State
...and then back to a felony did not alter the running of the speedy trial period from the original arrest date. See also Gue v. State, 297 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In Cowart, there was a mistrial, after which charges were amended. After the expiration of the 90 days under Rule 3.191(g), ......