Dudson v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Dudson v. State

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 183

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1986

DocketCase No. 84-233 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 183 (Dudson 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

Dudson v. State, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 183 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[184]*184OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant (defendant in trial court) was charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, etc. After two State continuances, notice of trial was sent June 20, 1984, to defense counsel’s office, in the form of a telegram, setting the case for trial the following day June 21, 1984. The speedy trial period expired July 2, 1984 (ten days thereafter). The defendant’s attorney indicated he received the notice the day of the trial.

When the defendant did not appear for trial June 21, 1984, the trial court issued a bench warrant and charged the appellant with a continuance, which continuance eventually resulted in the Court denying the motion to discharge the appellant under the speedy trial rule. Thereafter the appellant pled no contest, reserving the right to appeal.

Basically, this appeal turns on the question whether a one day notice of trial complies with prevailing law. Considering the facts and procedures followed in the instant case, the Court finds that the one day notice was not sufficient and does not comply with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding notice of hearings and trials, and the Judgment of the Trial Court is hereby REVERSED.

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

[184]*184OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant (defendant in trial court) was charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, etc. After two State continuances, notice of trial was sent June 20, 1984, to defense counsel’s office, in the form of a telegram, setting the case for trial the following day June 21, 1984. The speedy trial period expired July 2, 1984 (ten days thereafter). The defendant’s attorney indicated he received the notice the day of the trial.

When the defendant did not appear for trial June 21, 1984, the trial court issued a bench warrant and charged the appellant with a continuance, which continuance eventually resulted in the Court denying the motion to discharge the appellant under the speedy trial rule. Thereafter the appellant pled no contest, reserving the right to appeal.

Basically, this appeal turns on the question whether a one day notice of trial complies with prevailing law. Considering the facts and procedures followed in the instant case, the Court finds that the one day notice was not sufficient and does not comply with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding notice of hearings and trials, and the Judgment of the Trial Court is hereby REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudson-v-state-flacirct-1986.