State v. Foster

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Foster

505 So. 2d 658, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1073, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 15, 1987·No. No. 85-2717·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order discharging defendant on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was not brought to trial within ten days after the hearing on his motion for discharge. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(4). The state did not timely raise with the trial court, as it was the state’s burden to do, its argument that the hearing had been timely held and that the trial judge should have scheduled the trial within ten days thereafter. See Apolinari v. Ulmer, 483 So.2d 75, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order discharging defendant on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was not brought to trial within ten days after the hearing on his motion for discharge. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(4). The state did not timely raise with the trial court, as it was the state’s burden to do, its argument that the hearing had been timely held and that the trial judge should have scheduled the trial within ten days thereafter. See Apolinari v. Ulmer, 483 So.2d 75, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

State v. Foster, 505 So. 2d 658, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1073, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

505 So. 2d 658 (State v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related