Morrow v. State

458 So. 2d 312
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 20, 1984
Docket83-1157
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 312 (Morrow 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
Morrow v. State, 458 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

458 So.2d 312 (1984)

John Leroy MORROW, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 83-1157.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

September 20, 1984.
Rehearing Denied November 6, 1984.

*313 Leon B. Cheek, III, Casselberry, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

The "speedy trial" rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, requires that a person charged with a felony crime offense be brought to trial within 180 days of being taken into custody or, upon motion, that he be discharged. Because the state attorney failed to cause the defendant to be tried within the required period of time and the trial judge failed during that time period to enter an order specifically extending that time period for exceptional circumstances, this court must order that he be discharged. The trial judge's order in another case (erroneously) declaring a statute unconstitutional (see State v. Kaufman, 430 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1983)), did not have the effect of automatically extending the speedy trial time period in this case.

A trial scheduling court conference is neither a trial date nor a proceeding at which the presence of the defendant is required by the rules or any order in this case. Therefore, the failure of the defendant and his counsel to attend a trial scheduling conference does not establish that the defendant was unavailable for trial under Rule 3.191(e). See Fulk v. State, 417 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Neither are the operative facts in State v. Kubesh, 378 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), present here.

The judgment of conviction herein is reversed, the sentence vacated and the defendant discharged.

REVERSED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

Related

Clark v. State
3 So. 3d 1268 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Brown v. State
695 So. 2d 1275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Gonzalez v. State
536 So. 2d 1128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
458 So. 2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.