Hawley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hawley v. State

702 So. 2d 1357, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14565, 1997 WL 774777

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4590

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 1357 (Hawley 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

Hawley v. State, 702 So. 2d 1357, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14565, 1997 WL 774777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James Hawley, having entered a plea of no contest, seeks review of certain court orders relating to his speedy trial period. As to the first grant extending the speedy trial period by 60 days, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an [1358]*1358exceptional circumstance existed to justify the time extension. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(2); Routly v. State, 440 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, Routly v. Florida, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); Westberry v. State, 700 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for discharge, which was made after the initial 175-day speedy trial period but before the lapse of the 60-day extension was, therefore, proper.

Appellant also complains about the trial court’s grant of the state’s motions for continuance and consolidation. These rulings of the trial court are not preserved for review. A legal issue reserved for appeal after a no contest plea must be dispositive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); Stone v. State, 688 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The second grant extending the speedy trial period by 30 days is not dispositive because appellant failed to file a Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial Time as required by Rule 3.191(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The filing of the notice allows the court to make the inquiry required by Rule 3.191(p) and bring the defendant to trial if indicated. Appellant Haw-ley entered his plea of no contest before this was done.

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C. J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James Hawley, having entered a plea of no contest, seeks review of certain court orders relating to his speedy trial period. As to the first grant extending the speedy trial period by 60 days, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an [1358]*1358exceptional circumstance existed to justify the time extension. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(2); Routly v. State, 440 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, Routly v. Florida, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); Westberry v. State, 700 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for discharge, which was made after the initial 175-day speedy trial period but before the lapse of the 60-day extension was, therefore, proper.

Appellant also complains about the trial court’s grant of the state’s motions for continuance and consolidation. These rulings of the trial court are not preserved for review. A legal issue reserved for appeal after a no contest plea must be dispositive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); Stone v. State, 688 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The second grant extending the speedy trial period by 30 days is not dispositive because appellant failed to file a Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial Time as required by Rule 3.191(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The filing of the notice allows the court to make the inquiry required by Rule 3.191(p) and bring the defendant to trial if indicated. Appellant Haw-ley entered his plea of no contest before this was done.

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C. J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 1357, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14565, 1997 WL 774777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawley-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack