State v. Toyos, 81-17
Decision Date | 10 April 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 81-17,81-17 |
Citation | 448 So.2d 1135 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Waldo TOYOS, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Sams, Gerstein & Ward and Paul M. Rashkind, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
The state appeals an order discharging defendant pursuant to the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 (1980). We agree that under no view of the facts herein can the order be sustained. 1 The salient events are that:
1. On March 28, 1980, defendant was arrested and the applicable 180-day speedy trial period commenced to run.
2. On June 2, 1980, defendant's counsel was "down the hall" when the case was called for trial. Counsel for a co-defendant, purporting to speak for all the defendants, moved for a continuance. The court charged the continuance to all defendants.
3. Defendant's counsel thereafter failed to immediately inform the court that he opposed the co-defendant's motion for continuance and that defendant was indeed ready for trial, and he did not move to sever his client's trial from that of the co-defendants.
4. On August 11, 1980, when the case was called for the second time, defendant's counsel (while refusing to waive speedy trial) still did not inform the court that counsel for the co-defendant had been without authority or permission to move for continuance on behalf of defendant.
5. On November 26, 1980, defendant filed a motion for discharge. On that same date, however, he also filed two motions seeking to invoke additional discovery to include the statements of the state's material witnesses.
6. On December 1, 1980, defendant filed a first demand for speedy trial.
The trial court heard the motion for discharge on December 11, 1980, and entered a written order of discharge on December 18, 1980. In reversing the order of discharge, we rely on the following cases, collectively, as authority for our holding that defendant was not continuously available for trial between June 2, 1980, and December 1, 1980. See Turner v. State ex rel. Pellerin, 272 So.2d 129 (Fla.1973) ( ); Gonzalez v. State, 447 So.2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ( ); State v. Exposito, 327 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colby v. McNeill, 91-1157
...period under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3)(iii), (e). See, e.g., State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, 253 So.2d 861 (Fla.1971); State v. Toyos, 448 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The only exception to this rule arises where the defendant is not ready for trial and consequently requests a continuance......
-
Williams v. State, 5D99-820.
...set for his trial and moved for discovery as to the confidential informant, thus indicating his unreadiness for trial); State v. Toyos, 448 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (defendant was not continuously available for trial where a continuance was requested purportedly for all defendants and ......
- Commercial Coatings of Northwest Florida, Inc. v. Pensacola Concrete Const. Co., Inc.
-
Westlake v. Miner
...for continuance thereby waiving her right to speedy trial. See Gonzalez v. State, 447 So.2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Toyos, 448 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). On the contrary, the record reflects that petitioner promptly and expressly objected to the continuance requested by her cod......