State v. Kovach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Kovach

350 So. 2d 801, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1723

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 350 So. 2d 801 (State v. Kovach) 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. Kovach, 350 So. 2d 801, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the state from an order of discharge under the Speedy Trial Rule.

It is difficult to state the pertinent dates and facts with particularity because no witnesses testified at the hearing on the motion for discharge. The judge made his ruling based on proffers of what the witnesses would testify made by both attorneys. Suffice it to say, the record clearly reflects that the judge entered the order of discharge because he was of the view that after the appellee was located in Ohio the speedy trial time ran out when the state failed to follow through with extradition.

If the appellee failed to voluntarily waive extradition, this case would be governed by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e) which provides that an accused is not entitled to compute for speedy trial purposes the time which elapses when he voluntarily removes himself from the jurisdiction of the court or otherwise acts to make himself unavailable for trial. Cf. O’Bryan v. State, 326 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Since the record leaves so much doubt as to what really occurred, the order of discharge is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded with directions to have a further hearing at which time testimony can be taken toward developing whether the ap-pellee was be entitled to discharge for failure to provide him with a speedy trial.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the state from an order of discharge under the Speedy Trial Rule.

It is difficult to state the pertinent dates and facts with particularity because no witnesses testified at the hearing on the motion for discharge. The judge made his ruling based on proffers of what the witnesses would testify made by both attorneys. Suffice it to say, the record clearly reflects that the judge entered the order of discharge because he was of the view that after the appellee was located in Ohio the speedy trial time ran out when the state failed to follow through with extradition.

If the appellee failed to voluntarily waive extradition, this case would be governed by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e) which provides that an accused is not entitled to compute for speedy trial purposes the time which elapses when he voluntarily removes himself from the jurisdiction of the court or otherwise acts to make himself unavailable for trial. Cf. O’Bryan v. State, 326 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Since the record leaves so much doubt as to what really occurred, the order of discharge is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded with directions to have a further hearing at which time testimony can be taken toward developing whether the ap-pellee was be entitled to discharge for failure to provide him with a speedy trial.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 801, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kovach-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack