State v. Hill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hill

41 So. 3d 1091, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11765, 2010 WL 3186770

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2010

Docket5D10-101

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 3d 1091, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11765, 2010 WL 3186770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hill-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack