State v. King

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. King

24 Fla. Supp. 2d 173

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1987

DocketCase No. 86-216AC (County Court Case No. 21513,4,5MB)

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Fla. Supp. 2d 173 (State v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits 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. King, 24 Fla. Supp. 2d 173 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Defendant King was arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired by alcohol and no valid driver’s license. Neither defendant nor her attorney appeared for the scheduled arraignment. Trial was nevertheless set but continued twice at the request of the defendant. [174]*174Defendant thereafter moved for discharge alleging violation of the Speédy Trial Rule. This appeal is from the order discharging the defendant.

It is a well established rule that when a defendant, or her attorney, is not available for trial for whatever reason, no order for discharge can issue. Rule 3.191(e), R.Cr.P.

Further, as clearly stated by the Supreme Court of Florida, any continuance granted at the request of the defense constitutes a waiver of the right to a speedy trial under the rule. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Defendant King was arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired by alcohol and no valid driver’s license. Neither defendant nor her attorney appeared for the scheduled arraignment. Trial was nevertheless set but continued twice at the request of the defendant. [174]*174Defendant thereafter moved for discharge alleging violation of the Speédy Trial Rule. This appeal is from the order discharging the defendant.

It is a well established rule that when a defendant, or her attorney, is not available for trial for whatever reason, no order for discharge can issue. Rule 3.191(e), R.Cr.P.

Further, as clearly stated by the Supreme Court of Florida, any continuance granted at the request of the defense constitutes a waiver of the right to a speedy trial under the rule. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Fla. Supp. 2d 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-flacirct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack