State v. Kelley, W--390
| Decision Date | 26 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | W--390 |
| Citation | 322 So.2d 581 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant (State), v. Louis KELLEY and Jessie James Matthews, Appellees (Defendants). No |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Warren Goodwin, Tallahassee, for appellant.
John N. Hogenmuller, and Ed Duffee, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellees.
This appeal by the State questions the correctness of orders rendered by the trial court dismissing the information filed against the defendants and discharging them on the ground that they were not afforded a speedy trial as required by Rule 3.191(a)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The issue before us is whether the right to a speedy trial was waived or extended.
On 30 January 1974, the defendants were taken into custody and charged with robbery. Their trial was set for 23 April. On 19 April, the public defender, who was representing Matthews, was required to withdraw because of a conflict. The trial court immediately appointed private counsel for this defendant, and on the morning of the scheduled trial, the court continued the Matthews trial, stating that it knew that Matthews' newly appointed attorney could not be prepared on such short notice. The newly appointed attorney agreed. Thereafter, in the presence of Kelley's attorney, in open court, the State's attorney announced that they had stipulated to a continuance because of the appointment of new counsel for Matthews. Kelley's attorney made no response. The trial court then continued the Kelley trial.
On 26 April, at a hearing attended by all of the attorneys, the trial court reset the trial for 31 July. There were no objections by the attorneys.
On 31 July, the attorneys for the defendants filed motions to dismiss and to discharge defendants, because the State had failed to bring them to trial within 180 days from date of custody. 31 July was the one hundred eighty-third day from custody. The trial court granted the motions and discharged defendants.
The speedy trial rule may be extended by the trial court on its own motion where the delay is based on a development which could not be anticipated and which would materially affect the trial. Rule 3.191(d)(2) and (f), Rules of Criminal Procedure.
When counsel for a defendant requests a continuance, the time limitation on a speedy trial is extended for a reasonable period of time. Llano v. State, 271 So.2d 34 (Fla.App.3d, 1972).
A defendant's right to a speedy trial may be waived by his attorney. A waiver of a defendant's right to a speedy trial results where his attorney and the State's attorney agree upon or stipulate to a continuance of the trial, or when his attorney consents to or acquiesces...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Sec'y
...even against the client's wishes.'" (quoting State v. Abrams, 350 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977))); see also State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581, 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (finding that an attorney may waive his client's right to a speedy trial).Randall v. State, 938 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla. 1st......
-
Knight v. State
...charges which emanate from the same criminal episode." Stewart v. State , 491 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1986) ; see also State v. Kelley , 322 So.2d 581, 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) ("A waiver of a defendant's right to a speedy trial results where his attorney and the State's attorney agree upon or ......
-
McKinney v. Yawn
...and speedy trial is waived when both sides agree or stipulate to a continuance, as was done at the April 1 hearing. State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). III. In reaching our decision, we first note that no order, either oral or written, has been entered denying McKinney's fir......
-
Stuart v. State
...and because of the defense counsel's acquiescence to the Court setting the trial on the 181st day." The court cited State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581 (Fla.1st DCA 1975) and State v. Earnest, 265 So.2d 397 (Fla.1st DCA If there is any theory upon which the trial court might properly have denied......