STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 2022

Docket21-2016

StatusPublished

This text of STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ (STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ) 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

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ, Appellee.

No. 4D21-2016

[August 10, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert Diaz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 21-1181MU10A.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Eric J. Volz, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has appropriately “conced[ed] that the Trial Court erred by granting the Appellee’s Motion for Discharge (which was the only issue to be considered on appeal by this Honorable Court in this matter).”

This concession accords with our opinion in State v. Emmanuel, 323 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), which was issued nine days after the trial court order at issue in this case. There, we held that “Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC 20-13 (‘AOSC 20-13’) and subsequent orders suspended all time periods involving the speedy trial rule and was not limited to court proceedings.” Id. at 189. Thus, the State was able to file charges under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a), past the normal 90-day speedy trial deadline. See also Francois v. State, 317 So. 3d 1268, 1271-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[I]t is abundantly clear the speedy trial period may be suspended or extended by administrative order issued by the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court,” and “[i]n the initial order, Chief Justice Canady specified ‘[a]ll time periods involving the speedy trial procedure’ were to be suspended.”); Smith v. State, 310 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (Florida Supreme Court’s administrative orders concerning the suspension of “[a]ll time periods involving the speedy trial procedure” due to COVID-19 apply to deadlines for filing criminal charges).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charge.

MAY, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ, Appellee.

No. 4D21-2016

[August 10, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert Diaz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 21-1181MU10A.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Eric J. Volz, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has appropriately “conced[ed] that the Trial Court erred by granting the Appellee’s Motion for Discharge (which was the only issue to be considered on appeal by this Honorable Court in this matter).”

This concession accords with our opinion in State v. Emmanuel, 323 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), which was issued nine days after the trial court order at issue in this case. There, we held that “Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC 20-13 (‘AOSC 20-13’) and subsequent orders suspended all time periods involving the speedy trial rule and was not limited to court proceedings.” Id. at 189. Thus, the State was able to file charges under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a), past the normal 90-day speedy trial deadline. See also Francois v. State, 317 So. 3d 1268, 1271-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[I]t is abundantly clear the speedy trial period may be suspended or extended by administrative order issued by the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court,” and “[i]n the initial order, Chief Justice Canady specified ‘[a]ll time periods involving the speedy trial procedure’ were to be suspended.”); Smith v. State, 310 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (Florida Supreme Court’s administrative orders concerning the suspension of “[a]ll time periods involving the speedy trial procedure” due to COVID-19 apply to deadlines for filing criminal charges).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charge.

MAY, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN GOMEZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-florida-v-miguel-angel-guzman-gomez-fladistctapp-2022.