State v. Sutton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Sutton

269 So. 2d 712, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5925

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 1972

DocketNo. 72-439

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 269 So. 2d 712 (State v. Sutton) 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. Sutton, 269 So. 2d 712, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5925 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

A warrant was issued in Hendry County on October 19, 1971. Sutton was taken into custody on that date in Polk County, on an independent charge. Hendry County’s officers knew where Sutton was and lodged a detainer. Upon failure of the State to bring Sutton to trial within 18Ó days he moved for discharge under the speedy trial rule, CrPR 3.191, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly granted discharge. The State’s argument that the time began to run from the time the warrant was formally served on Sutton is without merit. He was in custody on these as well as other charges. There is no showing of non-availability under CrPR 3.191(e). He could have been tried within the time allowed by the rule. The State cannot enlarge the time merely by delaying deliberately the formal service of the warrant.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

A warrant was issued in Hendry County on October 19, 1971. Sutton was taken into custody on that date in Polk County, on an independent charge. Hendry County’s officers knew where Sutton was and lodged a detainer. Upon failure of the State to bring Sutton to trial within 18Ó days he moved for discharge under the speedy trial rule, CrPR 3.191, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly granted discharge. The State’s argument that the time began to run from the time the warrant was formally served on Sutton is without merit. He was in custody on these as well as other charges. There is no showing of non-availability under CrPR 3.191(e). He could have been tried within the time allowed by the rule. The State cannot enlarge the time merely by delaying deliberately the formal service of the warrant.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 So. 2d 712, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sutton-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack