Naugle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Naugle v. State

497 So. 2d 664, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2173, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2852

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 664 (Naugle 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

Naugle v. State, 497 So. 2d 664, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2173, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10047 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This appeal raises the issue of whether Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(b)(1) applies to fugitives who are being held in another jurisdiction solely on the basis of charges pending in this state. In Hawkins v. State, 451 So.2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), our colleagues of the first district held that the aforesaid rule does so apply. In State v. Bivona, 460 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), our colleagues of the fourth district rejected Hawkins and held that the rule does not so apply. We feel the better construction is that adopted in Hawkins and, therefore, hold that Rule 3.191(b)(1) is applicable to fugitives in other jurisdictions who are being held solely for charges pending in this state. Because our supreme court has accepted jurisdiction in Bivona and has heard oral argument but has not rendered a decision, we certify the question:

DOES FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.191(b)(1) APPLY TO PERSONS HELD IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF CHARGES PENDING IN THIS STATE?

We find no merit in the other issue raised by appellant.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This appeal raises the issue of whether Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(b)(1) applies to fugitives who are being held in another jurisdiction solely on the basis of charges pending in this state. In Hawkins v. State, 451 So.2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), our colleagues of the first district held that the aforesaid rule does so apply. In State v. Bivona, 460 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), our colleagues of the fourth district rejected Hawkins and held that the rule does not so apply. We feel the better construction is that adopted in Hawkins and, therefore, hold that Rule 3.191(b)(1) is applicable to fugitives in other jurisdictions who are being held solely for charges pending in this state. Because our supreme court has accepted jurisdiction in Bivona and has heard oral argument but has not rendered a decision, we certify the question:

DOES FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.191(b)(1) APPLY TO PERSONS HELD IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF CHARGES PENDING IN THIS STATE?

We find no merit in the other issue raised by appellant.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 664, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2173, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naugle-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack