Tolbert v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tolbert v. State

522 So. 2d 420, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 505, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 765, 1988 WL 12527

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1988

DocketNo. 85-2714

StatusPublished

This text of 522 So. 2d 420 (Tolbert 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

Tolbert v. State, 522 So. 2d 420, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 505, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 765, 1988 WL 12527 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following our opinion reported in Tolbert v. State, 474 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) the matter reoccurred in the trial court and the state filed an information charging a lesser crime arising out of the same criminal episode as involved in the earlier criminal procedure, but which was not one included as a lesser included offense of the original charge. Upon the expiration of the one hundred and eighty days of the original arrest (abating the period between the original trial and the filing of the mandate in the earlier proceeding in the trial court) the defendant filed a motion for discharge. The trial court denied the motion. Following a plea and sentence thereon, this appeal ensued. We reverse upon the reasoning of Weed v. State, 411 So.2d 863 (Fla.1982), and return the matter to the trial court with directions to discharge the appellant, the defendant therein.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following our opinion reported in Tolbert v. State, 474 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) the matter reoccurred in the trial court and the state filed an information charging a lesser crime arising out of the same criminal episode as involved in the earlier criminal procedure, but which was not one included as a lesser included offense of the original charge. Upon the expiration of the one hundred and eighty days of the original arrest (abating the period between the original trial and the filing of the mandate in the earlier proceeding in the trial court) the defendant filed a motion for discharge. The trial court denied the motion. Following a plea and sentence thereon, this appeal ensued. We reverse upon the reasoning of Weed v. State, 411 So.2d 863 (Fla.1982), and return the matter to the trial court with directions to discharge the appellant, the defendant therein.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 420, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 505, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 765, 1988 WL 12527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tolbert-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack