Yost v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yost v. State

343 So. 2d 99, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15431

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 9, 1977·No. No. CC-336·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Once again a prisoner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191¹ upon the ground that, as applied, it denies him equal protection pursuant to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant Yost reasons that the subject rule, in establishing a one year time frame of speedy trial for prisoners, when weighed against a 180-day time frame for non-prisoners presents a classic “on the face” deprivation of a fundamental right, and that such classification may withstand an equal protection challenge only if the state can demonstrate a “compelling Interest”. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). Yost then argues that such a “compelling state interest cannot be shown”. The identical question was presented to the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Lott, 286 So.2d 565 (Fla.1973), cert. den. Lott v. Florida, 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974), which resolved same contrary to Yost’s contention here.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur. RAWLS, J., specially concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Once again a prisoner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191¹ upon the ground that, as applied, it denies him equal protection pursuant to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant Yost reasons that the subject rule, in establishing a one year time frame of speedy trial for prisoners, when weighed against a 180-day time frame for non-prisoners presents a classic “on the face” deprivation of a fundamental right, and that such classification may withstand an equal protection challenge only if the state can demonstrate a “compelling Interest”. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). Yost then argues that such a “compelling state interest cannot be shown”. The identical question was presented to the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Lott, 286 So.2d 565 (Fla.1973), cert. den. Lott v. Florida, 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974), which resolved same contrary to Yost’s contention here.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur. RAWLS, J., specially concurs.

Yost v. State, 343 So. 2d 99, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15431 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

343 So. 2d 99 (Yost v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related