State v. Vukojevich, 80-1050
| Decision Date | 12 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1050,80-1050 |
| Citation | 392 So.2d 297 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Rudolph Stephen VUKOJEVICH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and G. P. Waldbart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The State appeals from the discharge of Rudolph Stephen Vukojevich pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. We reverse.
The Charlotte County Sheriff's Department arrested appellee on July 19, 1979. The State filed an indictment charging first degree murder on July 30, 1979. Appellee moved for a change of venue on October 17, 1979, and the court denied the motion subject to trying to select a Charlotte County jury. The court, after several delays charged to the State, set trial for January 2, 1980.
After voir dire had been initiated on January 2, and after several prospective jurors had been discharged for cause, the State withdrew its objection to venue change and the appellee renewed his motion for change of venue. The court granted the motion and reset the case for trial on January 21, 1980 but in Collier County. On January 11, appellee moved for discharge noting that 180 days had passed since his arrest. Appellee also filed a motion for continuance on January 18. At hearing on January 21, the court denied the motion for discharge, finding that exceptional circumstances required a change of venue. Citing the need for further discovery, appellee then pursued his motion for continuance and agreed that the delay would be charged to him. The court set trial for June 10 in Hendry County. The record reflects that extensive discovery and motion practices followed.
During voir dire on June 10, appellee again moved for discharge. The court granted discharge, asserting that the State had had two weeks within which to try appellee after the change of venue, and was prevented from doing so only by a crowded trial docket. The court alternately observed that appellee should have been brought to trial within 90 days from the grant of his motion for continuance on January 21.
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 requires that the State bring an accused to trial within 180 days of taking him into custody on a felony charge. The rule specifically provides that a person is deemed to have been brought to trial when trial commences by the swearing of a jury panel for voir dire examination. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(3). Since the voir dire examination of prospective jurors began on January 2, 1980 below, appellee was brought to trial within 180 days for the purpose of the rule. Moore v. State, 368 So.2d 1291 (Fla.1979); Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1979); State ex rel. Capibianco v. Green, 377 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
We hold that the granting of appellee's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nieman, 82-1808
...requiring dismissal for failure to charge defendant with crimes arising out of the same conduct or criminal action); State v. Vakojevich, 392 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (reversing order discharging defendant on speedy trial grounds when defendant had moved for continuance rendering time l......
-
Robinson v. State
...notwithstanding that the motion follows alleged discovery violations by the state.") (internal citations omitted); State v. Vukojevich, 392 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ("When the continuance was granted, the time limits set forth in ... rule [3.191] became inapplicable, and speedy tri......
-
State v. Albanez, 83-2011
...or denied motion for discharge, carries over to a refiled information. This principle was recognized by this court in State v. Vukojevich, 392 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). See also State v. Condon, 444 So.2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); State v. Cocalis, 443 So.2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Conner......
-
Compo v. State, s. 86-3225
...trial rule. Compo is, therefore, considered to have been "brought to trial" within the period required by the rule. State v. Vukojevich, 392 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Under a circumstance such as the present where the speedy trial rule has been complied with but there has been an interr......