Harris v. State, 81-675
| Citation | 400 So.2d 819 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-675,81-675 |
| Parties | Delano B. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida and Honorable C. Welborn Daniel, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sanford A. Minkoff of Ford & Minkoff, P. A., Tavares, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Delano Harris petitions for a writ of prohibition on the ground that speedy trial time has elapsed. The relevant dates are as follows:
October 21, 1980 Harris arrested for burglary and theft. Subsequently released
on bond.
December 1, 1980 Information filed in Lake County.
January 5, 1981 Harris fails to appear at arraignment.
January 14, 1981 Harris taken into custody in Polk County. Later transferred
to Lake County.
April 18, 1981 Speedy trial time normally would have elapsed.
April 30, 1981 Motion to Discharge.
May 5, 1981 Motion denied on the ground that speedy trial time would not
be tolled but would start anew on January 14, 1981.
The amended rule 3.191(e), effective January 1, 1981, provides in its entirety as follows:
Availability for Trial. A person is unavailable for trial if (1) the person or his counsel fails to attend a proceeding where their presence is required by these Rules, or (2) the person or his counsel is not ready for trial on the date trial is scheduled. A person who has not been available for trial during the term provided for herein is not entitled to be discharged. No presumption of non-availability attaches, but if the State objects to discharge and presents any evidence tending to show non-availability, the accused then must by competent proof establish availability during the term.
Former rule 3.191(e) read:
Availability for Trial. The trial of an accused who is not available shall be held in abeyance while such person is unavailable. A person who has not been continuously available for trial during the term provided for herein is not entitled to be discharged; no presumption of non-availability attaches, but if the State objects to discharge and presents any evidence tending to show non-availability, the accused then must by competent proof establish continuous availability during the term.
If an accused voluntarily removes himself from the jurisdiction of the court or otherwise 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 of justice. Upon such accused becoming available for trial and upon notice thereof by the accused or his counsel to both the court having jurisdiction over the trial and to the office of the prosecutor, or upon being retaken into custody, the time within which trial is to commence shall be as herein provided and begin anew.
Harris contends that the speedy trial period is tolled during the period of his absence or unavailability for trial. The state contends that a new speedy trial period commenced upon his recapture.
Although Harris was arrested October 21, 1980, the operative event, i. e.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez
...Commission, 441 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Batch v. State of Florida, 405 So.2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Harris v. State of Florida, 400 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Khoury v. Carvel Homes South, Inc., 403 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Okaloosa County Gas District v. Mandel, 394 So.......
-
Warwick v. State, 82-1415
...rule of procedure and as such was applicable to all pending matters. Batch v. State, 405 So.2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Harris v. State, 400 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 371 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA We find that the impact of the rule distinguishes this case from Garrett v......
-
Garnett v. State, 83-961
...required appearance precludes the defendant's reliance on Rule 3.191. See Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So.2d 161 (Fla.1983); Harris v. State, 400 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Since Garnett's non-appearance for trial was unexcused under Singleton, the trial court properly concluded that he could......
-
Hood v. State
...speedy trial rule rights until they are reinvoked by the filing of a demand for speedy trial.4 This court held in Harris v. State, 400 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), that the operative event that determined whether the former rule 3.191(e) or the amended rule 3.191(e) applied was the defend......