T.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.C. v. State

540 So. 2d 937, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 877, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1806, 1989 WL 32284

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1989

DocketNo. 87-03466

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 937 (T.C. v. State) 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

T.C. v. State, 540 So. 2d 937, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 877, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1806, 1989 WL 32284 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Judge.

T.C., a juvenile, challenges denial of his motion to dismiss a grand theft charge on the ground that his right to speedy trial under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(e) was violated. We agree.

T.C. was arrested on February 12, 1987, and charged on March 11 with grand theft. The state failed to schedule an appearance before the court within the speedy trial period, which was to expire on May 12. Instead, on May 12 the state filed a motion for extension of speedy trial due to the presence of “exceptional circumstances.” The state claimed that it had requested an appearance within the speedy trial period, but no appearance before the court was held since the clerk’s office lost the file.

The trial court orally granted the state’s motion to extend speedy trial without providing specific reasons or defining the length of the extension. T.C. filed a motion to dismiss the charge on November 3 on the ground that he was deprived of a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion, and T.C. pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to raise the speedy trial issue on appeal.

We think the trial judge erred in viewing these facts as “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(e). While we are sympathetic to the state’s predicament, we are mindful that the state failed to take any affirmative action to alert the clerk’s office or the trial judge that the file was missing until several days before speedy trial expired. Additionally, we note that the trial judge failed to recite his specific reasons for granting the motion and the length of the extension as required by the rule. T.L. v. Byrd, 451 So.2d 535 (Fla.1984); H.B. v. State, 455 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

SCHEB, Judge.

T.C., a juvenile, challenges denial of his motion to dismiss a grand theft charge on the ground that his right to speedy trial under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(e) was violated. We agree.

T.C. was arrested on February 12, 1987, and charged on March 11 with grand theft. The state failed to schedule an appearance before the court within the speedy trial period, which was to expire on May 12. Instead, on May 12 the state filed a motion for extension of speedy trial due to the presence of “exceptional circumstances.” The state claimed that it had requested an appearance within the speedy trial period, but no appearance before the court was held since the clerk’s office lost the file.

The trial court orally granted the state’s motion to extend speedy trial without providing specific reasons or defining the length of the extension. T.C. filed a motion to dismiss the charge on November 3 on the ground that he was deprived of a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion, and T.C. pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to raise the speedy trial issue on appeal.

We think the trial judge erred in viewing these facts as “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(e). While we are sympathetic to the state’s predicament, we are mindful that the state failed to take any affirmative action to alert the clerk’s office or the trial judge that the file was missing until several days before speedy trial expired. Additionally, we note that the trial judge failed to recite his specific reasons for granting the motion and the length of the extension as required by the rule. T.L. v. Byrd, 451 So.2d 535 (Fla.1984); H.B. v. State, 455 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 937, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 877, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1806, 1989 WL 32284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tc-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack