F.A.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

F.A.T. v. State

522 So. 2d 462, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 692, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 978

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1988

DocketNo. 86-3143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 462 (F.A.T. 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

F.A.T. v. State, 522 So. 2d 462, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 692, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 978 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

After pleading nolo contendere to the charges of obstructing an officer and trespass of a conveyance, and reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, defendant, F.A.T., filed this appeal. We affirm.

Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial and that his right to discharge turns on the question of whether he or the state is responsible for his nonappearance at an adjudicatory hearing. Contending that he never received notice of the adjudicatory hearing, defendant maintains that the state is responsible for the court’s failure to hear his cause within ninety days of the state’s filing of the petition of delinquency. We disagree.

The record indicates that at a prior hearing defendant’s counsel specifically agreed [463]*463to a trial date beyond the speedy trial time; as a result, defendant effectively waived his right to speedy trial. Long v. State, 513 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); J.B. v. Korda, 436 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180; see Smith v. State, 482 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

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