Collins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Collins v. State

489 So. 2d 133, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1183, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8021

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1986

DocketNo. BH-433

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 489 So. 2d 133 (Collins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. State, 489 So. 2d 133, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1183, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8021 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a conviction and sentence for the offense of escape on grounds that he was denied a speedy trial under the 180-day rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3). We affirm the conviction and sentence appealed.

Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge on July 8, 1985, the 181st day following his arrest. Appellant signed a petition for change of plea to nolo contendere on June 4, but he was not brought to court until July 8. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the “delay in proceeding on this cause was occasioned by Defendant’s [appellant’s] announcement of an intent to enter a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere ...,” and the motion was therefore properly denied.

Affirmed.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a conviction and sentence for the offense of escape on grounds that he was denied a speedy trial under the 180-day rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3). We affirm the conviction and sentence appealed.

Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge on July 8, 1985, the 181st day following his arrest. Appellant signed a petition for change of plea to nolo contendere on June 4, but he was not brought to court until July 8. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the “delay in proceeding on this cause was occasioned by Defendant’s [appellant’s] announcement of an intent to enter a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere ...,” and the motion was therefore properly denied.

Affirmed.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 So. 2d 133, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1183, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack