State v. Grooms, 80-539
| Decision Date | 17 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-539,80-539 |
| Citation | 389 So.2d 313 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kevin GROOMS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
William A. Patterson of Masterson, Rogers, Patterson, Masterson & Lowe, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Grooms was arrested on September 8, 1979, and released two days later. Subsequently, an information was filed charging him with battery of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 784.07, Florida Statutes. Grooms did not appear at his arraignment on October 16, at which time a public defender was appointed to represent him, and his trial was set for January 17, 1980. Grooms' appointed counsel was present when the trial date was announced in open court. A written notice of the January 17 trial date was sent to the public defender's office and to Grooms on November 27. Grooms' copy was apparently mailed to the jail from which he had been released earlier. Grooms evidently never received the written notice of trial. On November 28, the public defender was allowed to withdraw because Grooms had retained private counsel. Grooms failed to appear in court on January 17, and a capias was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on January 23 and a new trial date was set for March 25. A motion for discharge was filed on March 21, alleging the state had failed to bring Grooms to trial within 180 days as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. The circuit court granted the motion and the state appealed. The state urges that the motion should have been denied because Grooms failed to appear on the original trial date and was, therefore, not continuously available for trial. We agree.
The issue before us simply stated is whether notice to a defendant's attorney of the date he is scheduled for trial is notice to the defendant. We answer this question in the affirmative.
In Reizen v. Florida National Bank, 237 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), Reizen was ordered to appear before the circuit court to be sentenced for contempt or to show cause why sentence should not be imposed. The order was not personally served upon Reizen, but was served upon his attorney. Reizen failed to appear at the show cause hearing and the court entered its order of contempt and sentenced him to ninety days. Reizen sought to set aside the sentence on the ground that he had not received personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherrod v. Franza, 60683
...defendant was represented by the public defender. At all times notice to defendant's counsel was imputed to him. See State v. Grooms, 389 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Defendant contends that since the state did not request the trial court to keep him on bond, the necessary result of the or......
-
Brydger v. Wolfe, 4D02-552.
...Starling v. State, 799 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Woodard v. Fla. State Univ., 518 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); State v. Grooms, 389 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Blynder v. Blynder, 294 So.2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA Moreover, Calebrese stated at the hearing that, on the morning of the media......
-
State v. Collie
...to notice to the principal. State v. United Bonding Ins. Co., 81 N.M. 154, 464 P.2d 884 (1970). In the recent case of State v. Grooms, 389 So.2d 313 (Fla.2d DCA 1980) (1980 FLW 1979), our sister court was presented with the issue of whether notice to a defendant's attorney of the scheduled ......
-
Corrales v. State
...because "[e]ven if White did not have personal knowledge that the information was filed ... his attorney did"); State v. Grooms, 389 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (holding defendant's failure to appear for trial of which counsel had notice precluded later discharge under speedy trial ru......