State v. Ferras

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Ferras

467 So. 2d 765, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13404

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 10, 1985·No. No. 84-950·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand upon the authority of Jenkins v. State, 389 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1980). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(g) calls for a ninety-day extension, beginning on receipt of the mandate, and is equally applicable whether the state or defendant brings the interlocutory appeal and regardless of whether the appeal succeeds or fails. Absent the rule, a ninety-day extension is appropriate in all such eases. See Jenkins, supra, and numerous district court opinions, e.g., State v. McQuay, 423 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court’s initial order, granting the ninety-day extension, which it was later persuaded to withdraw, was correct.

HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand upon the authority of Jenkins v. State, 389 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1980). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(g) calls for a ninety-day extension, beginning on receipt of the mandate, and is equally applicable whether the state or defendant brings the interlocutory appeal and regardless of whether the appeal succeeds or fails. Absent the rule, a ninety-day extension is appropriate in all such eases. See Jenkins, supra, and numerous district court opinions, e.g., State v. McQuay, 423 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court’s initial order, granting the ninety-day extension, which it was later persuaded to withdraw, was correct.

HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.

State v. Ferras, 467 So. 2d 765, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13404 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

467 So. 2d 765 (State v. Ferras) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related