State v. Neff

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Neff

20 Fla. Supp. 2d 147

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1986

DocketCase No. 84-320 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 147 (State v. Neff) 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. Neff, 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 147 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.

After the speedy trial period to bring the defendant to trial had been [148]*148extended several times because of exceptional circumstances (the absence of the technician), the State announced, even though the witness was still unavailable, that it was ready to proceed to trial without the witness. The announcement was made within the speedy trial period pursuant to the previous orders. Nonetheless, the trial judge granted a motion for discharge in violation of Rule 3.191, Fla. R. Crim. P. The motion was untimely because the speedy trial period had not expired, see State v. Sagre, 435 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and, in any event, the State was privileged to proceed without the witness.

Reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed to trial.

KAYE and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.

After the speedy trial period to bring the defendant to trial had been [148]*148extended several times because of exceptional circumstances (the absence of the technician), the State announced, even though the witness was still unavailable, that it was ready to proceed to trial without the witness. The announcement was made within the speedy trial period pursuant to the previous orders. Nonetheless, the trial judge granted a motion for discharge in violation of Rule 3.191, Fla. R. Crim. P. The motion was untimely because the speedy trial period had not expired, see State v. Sagre, 435 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and, in any event, the State was privileged to proceed without the witness.

Reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed to trial.

KAYE and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Fla. Supp. 2d 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-neff-flacirct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack