Garnett v. State

457 So. 2d 1144
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 23, 1984
Docket83-961
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 457 So. 2d 1144 (Garnett 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
Garnett v. State, 457 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

457 So.2d 1144 (1984)

Errol GARNETT, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 83-961.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 23, 1984.

*1145 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Renee E. Ruska, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We reject the defendant's claim that he was entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. Garnett did not appear on the date scheduled for trial. Although his absence was caused by his incarceration in the Palm Beach county jail at the time, this did not render him "available for trial" under Rule 3.191(e) because the state and the lower court had no notice that this was the case. Singleton v. Gross, 436 So.2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 436 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1983) so holds. Accord, State v. Kerwin, 449 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The fact that the prosecution subsequently became aware of the defendant's whereabouts before the 180-day period expired does not, contrary to the appellant's contention, require the application of the converse principle that a defendant is not deemed unavailable when his incarceration in another county is known to the authorities. Robbins v. State, 453 So.2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see generally, e.g., Holmes v. Leffler, 411 So.2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 1982). This is because the rule requires that the defendant be "continuously" available so that an unexcused absence at any single required appearance precludes the defendant's reliance on Rule 3.191. See Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1983); Harris v. State, 400 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Since Garnett's non-appearance for trial was unexcused under Singleton, the trial court properly concluded that he could not prevail.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Mainwaring v. State
11 So. 3d 986 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Jones v. State
573 So. 2d 185 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Pilgrim v. Swanson
558 So. 2d 176 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Walker v. State
492 So. 2d 772 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Rasul
468 So. 2d 1088 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 So. 2d 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garnett-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.