State v. Hayes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hayes

546 So. 2d 87, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1637, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3817, 1989 WL 73765

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1989

DocketNo. 88-02924

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 87 (State v. Hayes) 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 v. Hayes, 546 So. 2d 87, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1637, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3817, 1989 WL 73765 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion for discharge alleging that he had not been brought to trial within the speedy trial period. We reverse.

The appellee, Timothy Hayes, was arrested for introducing contraband into a correctional facility. Prior to the filing of any charging instrument, the appellee filed a demand for trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. The state subsequently filed an information charging [88]*88the appellee, as an adult, for introduction of contraband into a correction facility in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), and possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987). Thereafter, the appellee filed a motion for discharge alleging that the sixty day speedy trial period had expired and that he had been continuously available for trial. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order discharging the appel-lee. The state filed this timely appeal.

A demand for speedy trial filed prior to the filing of an information is a nullity. State v. Branam, 434 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also, State v. Hill, 313 So.2d 766 (Fla.1975); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(f)(2). We, accordingly, reverse the trial court’s order discharging the appellee and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion for discharge alleging that he had not been brought to trial within the speedy trial period. We reverse.

The appellee, Timothy Hayes, was arrested for introducing contraband into a correctional facility. Prior to the filing of any charging instrument, the appellee filed a demand for trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. The state subsequently filed an information charging [88]*88the appellee, as an adult, for introduction of contraband into a correction facility in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), and possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987). Thereafter, the appellee filed a motion for discharge alleging that the sixty day speedy trial period had expired and that he had been continuously available for trial. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order discharging the appel-lee. The state filed this timely appeal.

A demand for speedy trial filed prior to the filing of an information is a nullity. State v. Branam, 434 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also, State v. Hill, 313 So.2d 766 (Fla.1975); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(f)(2). We, accordingly, reverse the trial court’s order discharging the appellee and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 87, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1637, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3817, 1989 WL 73765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hayes-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack