State v. Hill

41 So. 3d 1091, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11765, 2010 WL 3186770
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Hill. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13565
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 13, 2010·No. 5D10-101·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order granting Hill’s motion for discharge based upon an alleged violation of Hill’s right to a speedy trial. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191. We reverse.

In response to Hill’s notice of expiration of trial date, the trial court scheduled trial for Monday, January 4, 2010. However, on December 31, 2009, the trial court erroneously determined that the recapture period had expired and entered an order of discharge. The State argues, and Hill acknowledges, that the scheduled trial date actually fell on the last day of the recapture period. See State v. McFarland, 747 So.2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Edwards, 528 So.2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Because the scheduled trial date fell within the recapture period, it was improper to enter the order of discharge.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J., EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Hill, 41 So. 3d 1091, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11765, 2010 WL 3186770 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

41 So. 3d 1091 (State v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Edwards
528 So. 2d 120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. McFarland
747 So. 2d 481 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)