Stuart v. State, 75-1172
| Citation | 339 So.2d 659 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1172,75-1172 |
| Parties | Alphonso STUART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb, Ast. Public Defender, Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender,
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.
Appellant was charged in the trial court with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony, to-wit, grand larceny. An order withholding adjudication was entered, and the defendant was placed on probation for three (3) years. This appeal questions whether the trial court should have discharged the defendant/appellant and dismissed the case pending against him on the ground that he was not afforded a speedy trial in accordance with the requirements of law, and further questions whether the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on criminal trespass.
The defendant was arrested on November 8, 1974. The record reveals that the defendant's trial commenced on May 8, 1975, the 181st day after arrest. From the record it affirmatively appears that there has been a waiver of defendant's right to speedy trial by the proceedings taking place in open court. On Monday, April 28, 1975, counsel for the State and the defendant appeared before the trial judge as a plea was being negotiated. It was agreed to set the case over to April 30, 1975, for a report on the plea. Subsequently, the State and the defendant's counsel reported that the negotiated plea was refused, and the case would be placed on standby status for trial. On May 7, 1975, the Court announced, 'All right, could we go with this one number one today?' Counsel for the State announced the State witness had come to court numerous times, and the defendant was on standby as well. Then the Court announced again, 'I will put it over tomorrow, but if a trial starts and runs three days, I don't want anyone complaining they can't get a speedy trial.' Defense counsel did not object and, even though his defendant was not present in court, he said he was ready for trial.
We have determined that the defendant effectively waived his right to be tried within the time limitation of the Rule because of the plea negotiations and because cause of the defense counsel's acquiescence to the Court setting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. Yawn
...acquiescence in a trial date set beyond the speedy trial period. State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Stuart v. State 339 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); State v. Earnest, 265 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); and Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). However, none ......
-
Stuart v. State
...Justice. By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (Stuart v. State, 339 So.2d 659), which conflicts with decisions in Gue v. State, 297 So.2d 135 (Fla.2d DCA 1974) and State ex rel. Flowers v. Goodman, 241 So.2d 457 (......
-
State v. Ansley, FF-224
...acquiescence in a trial date set beyond the speedy trial period. State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Stuart v. State, 339 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); State v. Earnest, 265 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); and Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). However, non......
-
Sheffield v. Fleet, HH-206
...acquiescence in a trial date set beyond the speedy trial period. State v. Kelley, 322 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Stuart v. State, 339 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); State v. Earnest, 265 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); and Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). However, non......