From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 10, 1985
474 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

In Davis v. State, 474 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we discharged the defendant where there had been "no showing either that the witness in question was unforeseeably or unavoidably absent or that his presence was `uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial,' so that none of the prerequisites of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(1) were satisfied."

Summary of this case from Clark v. State

Opinion

No. 84-2405.

July 30, 1985. Rehearing Denied September 10, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert H. Newman, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Arthur Carter and John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


Since there was no showing either that the witness in question was unforeseeably or unavoidably absent or that his presence was "uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial," so that none of the prerequisites of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(1) were satisfied, the trial court plainly erred in nonetheless continuing the trial and extending the speedy trial time on account of his asserted unavailability. It follows that the defendant's motion for discharge made on the expiration of sixty days after his demand under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2) should have been granted. For this reason, the judgment under review is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

Rule 3.191. Speedy Trial
(f) Exceptional Circumstances. As permitted by (d)(2) of this Rule, the court may order an extension of the time periods provided under this Rule where exceptional circumstances are shown to exist. Exceptional circumstances shall not include general congestion of the court's docket, lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses, or other avoidable or foreseeable delays.
Exceptional circumstances are those which as a matter of substantial justice to the accused or the State or both require an order by the court: Such circumstances include (1) unexpected illness or unexpected incapacity or unforeseeable and unavoidable absence of a person whose presence or testimony is uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 10, 1985
474 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

In Davis v. State, 474 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we discharged the defendant where there had been "no showing either that the witness in question was unforeseeably or unavoidably absent or that his presence was `uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial,' so that none of the prerequisites of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(1) were satisfied."

Summary of this case from Clark v. State
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALPHONSO DAVIS, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 10, 1985

Citations

474 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Watts v. State

But see Wright v. State, 486 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1986) (witness' labor pains were unforeseeable);…

Miketa v. Cardonne

This being so, the petitioners' speedy-trial rights were denied below, and they are now entitled to a…