State v. Degraf

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Degraf

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 114

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1990

DocketCase No. 89-93AC10 (County Court Case No. 88-25204MM10A)

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 114 (State v. Degraf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Degraf, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 114 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEROY H. MOE, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court issues this following opinion:

Since the enactment of Section 316.1934(4) Florida Statutes in 1983, a defendant has a right to a jury trial when charged with a violation of Section 316.193(1). Defendant may waive that right (Cirio v State, 440 So.2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and Ringemann v State, 546 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)) but such waiver must be with the consent of the state according to Section 3.260 F.R.Cr.P. The State did not waive jury trial in the case, and therefore, trial court’s denying the defendant a jury trial is error.

[115]*115Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Honorable Court REVERSES the trial court and REMANDS case to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Broward County Courthouse, 201 Southeast Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301, this 18th day of July, 1990.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEROY H. MOE, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court issues this following opinion:

Since the enactment of Section 316.1934(4) Florida Statutes in 1983, a defendant has a right to a jury trial when charged with a violation of Section 316.193(1). Defendant may waive that right (Cirio v State, 440 So.2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and Ringemann v State, 546 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)) but such waiver must be with the consent of the state according to Section 3.260 F.R.Cr.P. The State did not waive jury trial in the case, and therefore, trial court’s denying the defendant a jury trial is error.

[115]*115Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Honorable Court REVERSES the trial court and REMANDS case to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Broward County Courthouse, 201 Southeast Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301, this 18th day of July, 1990.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-degraf-flacirct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack