State v. Youman, 78-1280

• Decision Date: 23 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 78-1280,78-1280
• Citation: 379 So.2d 983
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Terry Lee YOUMAN, Prince Albert Lewis and Idus Jenkins, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 983

379 So.2d 983

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Terry Lee YOUMAN, Prince Albert Lewis and Idus Jenkins, Appellees.

No. 78-1280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1980.

David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and William B. King, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Philip G. Butler, Jr., of Foley, Colton & Butler, West Palm Beach, for appellee Lewis.

Nelson E. Bailey of Bailey & Jordan, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Youman.

Frank G. Callas of O'Connor, Baylor, Callas & Elliott, Palm Beach, for appellee Jenkins.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves an issue relating to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191, speedy trial. Just prior to trial on two informations consolidated for trial the court entered an order suppressing evidence. An interlocutory appeal followed and this court ultimately reversed the ruling and remanded the case for trial. During the pendency of the interlocutory appeal the state moved to extend the speedy trial limitations and motion was granted prior to the reversal of the order of suppression.

Upon remand the defendants moved for discharge under the speedy trial rule. The motions were granted and the state appealed from the orders of discharge; this court reversed the trial court.

The defendants again moved for discharge, asserting that at no time since the issuance of the mandate or the motion to discharge had the state requested an extension of time in order to prosecute an interlocutory appeal, nor had a valid order been issued extending the limits of speedy trial. The motions were granted and the state again appealed.

The narrow issue presented is whether the state was required to obtain an order extending the time under the speedy trial limitations when it appealed the first orders of discharge. The state relies on State v. Pearce, 336 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1st DCA 1976), which dealt with a final order dismissing an information. In its order granting the motions to discharge the trial court depended upon State v. Cannon, 332 So.2d 127 (Fla.4th DCA 1976) and Jenkins v. State, 349 So.2d 1192 (Fla.4th DCA 1977), both cases considering an interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence.

Since the above decisions the supreme court in State v. Barnett, 366 So.2d 411 (Fla.1978) was faced with the question of whether or not it was necessary for the state to apply for an extension of the speedy trial time limits when it wished to take an appeal from an erroneous trial court order granting the discharge of a defendant under the rule. Therein it was stated that We agree with the district court that the speedy trial rules are silent with regard to whether the state must apply for an extension when it wishes to appeal an erroneous order of the trial...