State v. Carroll, 70-735

Decision Date28 October 1970
Docket NumberNo. 70-735,70-735
PartiesThe STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earl Jackson CARROLL, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty. and Joseph Durant, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.

Manners & Amoon, Miami, and Harold Mendelow, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and MARTIN, HENRY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

CARROLL, Judge.

This appeal is by the state from an order of the criminal court of record of Dade County which discharged the appellee-defendant Earl Jackson Carroll, herein referred to as the defendant, from the crimes of which he had been charged by information, for want of a speedy trial. In the circumstances disclosed in the record, the challenged order of the trial court was incorrect, and we reverse.

Section 915.01(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides that when a person who has been arrested and released on bond files written demands for trial in three Successive terms of the court having jurisdiction to try the offense involved, such person will be entitled to discharge if 'he is not brought to trial at or before the third full term after the date he is first committed,' (unless he has prevented attendance of witnesses or sought a continuance by a filed pleading). 1 The date of commitment there mentioned has reference to the date of arrest. State ex rel. Buono v. Goodman, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 185. Where demands for trial are filed as required in three successive terms, the time within which the statute provides the person should be brought to trial or otherwise be entitled to discharge, is the period of three full terms of the court following that in which the person was thus 'committed.' Bryant v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 700.

The terms of the criminal court of record of Dade County as fixed by § 32.03(4) (a) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with the dates of such terms as they occurred in the year 1969, were as follows: 'Second Tuesday in February (February 11 through April 7). Second Tuesday in April (April 8 through June 9). Second Tuesday in June (June 10 through August 11). Second Tuesday in August (August 12 through October 13). Second Tuesday in October (October 14 through December 8). Second Tuesday in December (commencing December 9).'

Based on an indictment filed April 1, 1969, the defendant was arrested on that date, and was released on bond. Predicated on the indictment, the state attorney filed an information on April 11, 1969, charging the defendant and one Sy Chadroff with conspiracy to solicit a bribe (in one count) and with soliciting a bribe (in a second count).

In the February term, in which the arrest was made, the defendant filed a demand for trial on April 2, 1969, and filed demands for trial in each of the succeeding three terms, on April 10, June 13, and October 6.

During the second term after the date of arrest, the defendant moved to dismiss the information, and on July 24, 1969, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the information by an oral order. 2

Later, after the state attorney made written request to the court for the oral order of dismissal of the information to be reduced to writing in order that the state might institute an appeal therefrom, 3 the trial court entered a written order thereon on September 2, 1969. 4

We have no need to determine whether the oral order of dismissal made in July, in the second term after arrest, was effective when pronounced, or did not become effective until placed in writing on September 2, 1969, or if the written order of September operated nunc pro tunc (Cf. State v. Kahler, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 272). This is so because whether the dismissal of the information is considered to have become effective on the date of the oral order in July or only later by the written order of September 2 the result would be the same, since both orders were entered prior to the end of the third full term after the date the defendant was first committed.

On September 22, 1969, the state appealed from the written order of September 2, and this court reversed, thereby reinstating the information against the defendant. See State v. Carroll, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 415. Our mandate thereon was filed in the trial court on May 8, 1970, after which the case was set for trial in the criminal court of record on a stated date in the ensuing term of the court, which commenced on May 12, 1970.

However, on May 22, 1970, prior to the date for which the trial was thus set, the defendant moved to be discharged for want of a speedy trial because he had not been brought to trial within three full terms after date of his commitment. On June 22, 1970, the court granted the motion and discharged the defendant. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Meeks v. State, 40971
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 1971
    ...v. Edwards, 244 So.2d 438 (Fla.App.4th, 1970), cert. discharged 249 So.2d 16 (Fla. S.Ct., filed June 9, 1971) and State v. Carroll, 240 So.2d 205 (Fla.App.3rd, 1970), both of which cases hold, among other things, that Three full terms of court following date of commitment must pass before t......
  • State v. Wolfe, 70--1168
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22 Junio 1971
    ...ex rel. Morgan, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 431; State v. Cook, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 769, cert. denied Fla., 211 So.2d 211; State v. Carroll, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 205; Woodward v. Edwards, Fla.App.1970, 244 So.2d 438. To hold otherwise would put prosecuting officials of a criminal court on the......
  • State ex rel. Retchin v. Turner
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10 Diciembre 1970
    ...rel. Johnson v. Edwards, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 393, 395; Clark v. Edwards, as Judge, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 399. See also State v. Carroll, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 205. We withhold the issuance of a formal peremptory writ in full confidence that the trial court will enter an order dismissing......
  • Carroll v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 1971
    ...petitioner pursuant to former Fla.Stat. § 915.01(2), F.S.A., commonly referred to as the speedy trial statute. See State v. Carroll, 240 So.2d 205 (Fla.App.3rd, 1970). The terms of court under consideration in this review, are: Term 1, February 11 through April 7, 1969; Term 2, April 8 thro......
  • 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