State v. Riera

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Riera

888 So. 2d 761, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19657, 2004 WL 2955030

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 2004

DocketNo. 3D04-2266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 888 So. 2d 761 (State v. Riera) 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. Riera, 888 So. 2d 761, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19657, 2004 WL 2955030 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the State’s petition for certio-rari review of the circuit court appellate decision which reversed the trial court’s denial of a state-charged continuance, thereby discharging the defendant upon the expiration of the speedy trial period. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191.

The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, followed the essential requirements of the law. The defense had been [762]*762diligent in preparing its case and demanding discovery; the state was not similarly diligent as it repeatedly failed to provide essential discovery as requested by defense counsel, and was repeatedly admonished by the trial court for failing to do so. The state’s inordinate failure to provide fundamental and valuable discovery until the very last day of the speedy trial recapture period reasonably and effectively prejudiced the defense in preparation of its case, and would delay the trial date past all of the speedy trial deadlines. Under the circumstances, the defense properly refused to waive its speedy trial rights.

Given the facts of this case, discharge of the defendant was the proper remedy under the speedy trial rule. Any other result would compromise the purposes of the speedy trial rule, and set a precedent for allowing the state to delay providing requested discovery with no concomitant penalty. It would also, in some cases, force defense counsel to compromise its preparation of a fair and competent defense.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny the State’s petition for certio-rari review of the circuit court appellate decision which reversed the trial court’s denial of a state-charged continuance, thereby discharging the defendant upon the expiration of the speedy trial period. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191.

The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, followed the essential requirements of the law. The defense had been [762]*762diligent in preparing its case and demanding discovery; the state was not similarly diligent as it repeatedly failed to provide essential discovery as requested by defense counsel, and was repeatedly admonished by the trial court for failing to do so. The state’s inordinate failure to provide fundamental and valuable discovery until the very last day of the speedy trial recapture period reasonably and effectively prejudiced the defense in preparation of its case, and would delay the trial date past all of the speedy trial deadlines. Under the circumstances, the defense properly refused to waive its speedy trial rights.

Given the facts of this case, discharge of the defendant was the proper remedy under the speedy trial rule. Any other result would compromise the purposes of the speedy trial rule, and set a precedent for allowing the state to delay providing requested discovery with no concomitant penalty. It would also, in some cases, force defense counsel to compromise its preparation of a fair and competent defense.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

888 So. 2d 761, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19657, 2004 WL 2955030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-riera-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack