Mullin v. State, 74--302
| Decision Date | 17 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--302,74--302 |
| Citation | 307 So.2d 829 |
| Parties | Michael J. MULLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Moran & Gold, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.
The defendant was charged by information, tried by jury, convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of second degree murder and sentenced to one thirty-year term and two life terms in the state penitentiary, to run consecutively.
The crucial issue on appeal is whether the state failed to accord the defendant a speedy trial, thereby entitling him to discharge as a matter of right. The record discloses that the defendant moved the court to suppress his confession, which motion was granted. The state appealed the suppression, and the defendant was not brought to trial for some 223 days subsequent to the court's granting of his motion to suppress. The state never moved the court for an order extending or tolling the speedy trial period.
Our interpretation of Rule 3.191(d)(2), CrPR, as applied in State v. Williams, Fla.App.1973, 287 So.2d 415, is that a court order is required to extend or toll the speedy trial period under those circumstances set out in the rule. Esperti v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 58, 64.
The state having failed to request an order of extension pending the outcome of the interlocutory appeal, as specifically provided in Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), CrPR, the speedy trial period elapsed, and the convictions and sentences are hereby reversed and the defendant is discharged.
'Subsection (d)(2) of Rule 3.191 is such a mechanism whereby time may be extended to accommodate the need of either side for additional time. Use of discovery procedures to prepare for trial is one type of reasonable delay envisioned. Such delays are 'excused' with the qualification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. State
...1976), with Jenkins v. State, 349 So.2d 1192 (Fla.4th DCA 1977), State v. Cannon, 332 So.2d 127 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), and Mullin v. State, 307 So.2d 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975), the court below correctly determined that the automatic statutory stay would not ......
-
Stuart v. State
...and will not be automatic or presumed from the circumstances, State v. Cannon, 332 So.2d 127 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Mullin v. State, 307 So.2d 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), Cert. denied 317 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975); Pouncy v. State, 296 So.2d 625 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Esperti v. State, 276 So.2d 58 (Fla.2d ......
-
State v. Carter
...4th DCA 1977); State v. Jones, 332 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Cannon, 332 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Mullin v. State, 307 So.2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975); Riggins v. State, 301 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Pouncy v. State, 296 So.2d 62......
-
Muller v. State, 78-1860
...(Fla.1978); Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1978); State ex rel. Lee v. Harper, 372 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Mullin v. State, 307 So.2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Pouncy v. State, 296 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The State next urges that the defendant waived his speedy trial claim......