Dominguez v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Dominguez v. State

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 133

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1988

DocketCase No. 86-095-AC (County Court Case No. 49910NC)

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 133 (Dominguez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dominguez v. State, 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 133 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant appeals his conviction of Driving Under the Influence of Alcoholic Beverages, a violation of Florida Statutes 316.193 and resulting sentences.

The only issue for review is whether the trial court abused its [134]*134discretion in finding exceptional circumstances which would justify an extension of the speedy trial time pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.191(d)(2) and (f). The facts here are similar to those of Dedmon v. State, 400 So.2d 1042 and Valle v. State, 444 So.2d 534, where one of the State’s witnesses went on vacation unexpectedly. The trial court found that no abuse of discretion was shown. Similarly, the record here indicates that the State made diligent efforts to secure the witness and had been in contact with the witness but was uninformed of her intended absence. Further, her testimony was unique in that she was the nurse who drew blood for a critical blood alcohol content report and the defense had called into question whether the blood sample was legally taken.

Based upon these facts, the time extension was reasonable. No abuse of discretion was shown.

Accordingly, the order denying RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ’S Motion for Discharge and the Final Judgment of Conviction and Sentence are Affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant appeals his conviction of Driving Under the Influence of Alcoholic Beverages, a violation of Florida Statutes 316.193 and resulting sentences.

The only issue for review is whether the trial court abused its [134]*134discretion in finding exceptional circumstances which would justify an extension of the speedy trial time pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.191(d)(2) and (f). The facts here are similar to those of Dedmon v. State, 400 So.2d 1042 and Valle v. State, 444 So.2d 534, where one of the State’s witnesses went on vacation unexpectedly. The trial court found that no abuse of discretion was shown. Similarly, the record here indicates that the State made diligent efforts to secure the witness and had been in contact with the witness but was uninformed of her intended absence. Further, her testimony was unique in that she was the nurse who drew blood for a critical blood alcohol content report and the defense had called into question whether the blood sample was legally taken.

Based upon these facts, the time extension was reasonable. No abuse of discretion was shown.

Accordingly, the order denying RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ’S Motion for Discharge and the Final Judgment of Conviction and Sentence are Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-state-flacirct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack