Jackson v. State

448 So. 2d 577, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12634
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jackson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 403 So. 2d 1063
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 1984·No. No. 82-1443·Published

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

We hold that a motion made by appointed defense counsel for a continuance in order to prepare for trial is effective to waive a prior pro se demand for speedy trial filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(2). The defense of a criminal charge is a serious, highly technical undertaking and some one person must be in charge of tactics and strategy and ready for trial. A demand for a speedy trial is not made in good faith and is not valid if the defense is not ready for trial. Defense counsel cannot be ready and not ready for trial at the same time. When a defendant charged with crime has an attorney it is the [578]*578responsibility of the attorney to know when the defense is ready or not ready for trial. See Judge Cobb’s consideration of this problem in Dickey v. Honorable Raymond T. McNeal, 445 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Jackson v. State, 448 So. 2d 577, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12634 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

448 So. 2d 577 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dickey v. McNeal
445 So. 2d 692 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)