State v. Romano
| Decision Date | 20 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1513,73--1513 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony Frank ROMANO et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty. and Joseph Durant, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Karen Gottlieb, Legal Intern, for appellees.
Before HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge.
The state seeks review of an order of the trial court discharging the defendant-appellees from the crimes for which they were charged in an information.
The defendants were arrested on August 25, 1973. On September 5, 1973 a preliminary hearing was held in the Dade County Court, and the defendants were bound over to circuit court upon a finding of probable cause that the defendants committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The information, however, was not filed by the State until October 5, 1973, exactly one month later. The order now appealed was entered by the trial judge on November 21, 1973. As grounds for discharging the defendants, the judge stated in his order that the State had failed to file an information against the defendants within 14 days from the time they were bound over by the county court to the circuit court.
We reverse and hold that there is nothing within the Florida Criminal Rules of Procedure requiring the state to file an information within two weeks from the time a defendant is bound over following a preliminary hearing.
As this court stated in State v. Fattorusso, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 630, the trial court has the inherent right to dismiss an action in the interests of the orderly administration of justice. But, in this case there was no 'continuous, deliberate or flagrant violation' of any order of the trial court or any rule of procedure propounded by the Florida Supreme Court which would justify the drastic action taken by the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that the court abused its discretion by discharging the defendants.
The appellees argue that CrPR, 3.131(b) requires that a defendant in custody must be given a preliminary hearing within 96 hours from the time of the defendant's first appearance, or else be released from custody on a personal surety bond.
Appellees further cite the Florida Supreme Court's per curiam opinion In re Rule 3.131(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fla.1974, 289 So.2d 3. Therein, the court stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Braunsdorf
...43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 667, 704 n.177 (1976); Note, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 996, 998 (1966). The defendant also cites two Florida cases, State v. Romano, 300 So.2d 22 (Fla.App.1974), and State v. Fattorusso, 228 So.2d 630 (Fla.App.1969). In Fattorusso the court of appeals reversed a trial court's dismissa......
-
State v. Abbati
...to do so was contained in the court rules or case law. See State v. Sherrod, 383 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla.App.1980). But see State v. Romano, 300 So.2d 22 (Fla.App.1974); State v. Fattorusso, 228 So.2d 630 (Fla.App.1969) (both recognizing inherent right of trial court to dismiss an action becaus......