Covello v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Covello v. State

455 So. 2d 1321, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15088

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2355

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 455 So. 2d 1321 (Covello 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

Covello v. State, 455 So. 2d 1321, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reject Covello’s contention that he was entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule. We affirm.

Executing a search warrant, police held Covello in his home at gunpoint. He was handcuffed, not permitted to move from his chair or to smoke a cigarette, and was photographed. He was released, however, and was therefore not entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191; D.L.M. v. State, 397 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); he was not taken into custody within the meaning of the rule.

Florida courts, addressing the issue of custody and speedy trial considerations, have uniformly held that a defendant is not in custody until he has been formally arrested, Williams v. State, 382 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Robbins, 359 So.2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), or held for “something more than an investigatory detention,” State v. Christian, 442 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), citing Snead, v. State, 346 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). Defendant Covello was clearly in custody for fourth amendment purposes, but was not in custody under the speedy trial rule.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reject Covello’s contention that he was entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule. We affirm.

Executing a search warrant, police held Covello in his home at gunpoint. He was handcuffed, not permitted to move from his chair or to smoke a cigarette, and was photographed. He was released, however, and was therefore not entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191; D.L.M. v. State, 397 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); he was not taken into custody within the meaning of the rule.

Florida courts, addressing the issue of custody and speedy trial considerations, have uniformly held that a defendant is not in custody until he has been formally arrested, Williams v. State, 382 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Robbins, 359 So.2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), or held for “something more than an investigatory detention,” State v. Christian, 442 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), citing Snead, v. State, 346 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). Defendant Covello was clearly in custody for fourth amendment purposes, but was not in custody under the speedy trial rule.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 So. 2d 1321, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covello-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack