From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

F.A.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 15, 1988
522 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 86-3143.

March 15, 1988.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Seymour Gelber, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michele L. Crawford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


After pleading nolo contendere to the charges of obstructing an officer and trespass of a conveyance, and reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss, defendant, F.A.T., filed this appeal. We affirm.

Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial and that his right to discharge turns on the question of whether he or the state is responsible for his nonappearance at an adjudicatory hearing. Contending that he never received notice of the adjudicatory hearing, defendant maintains that the state is responsible for the court's failure to hear his cause within ninety days of the state's filing of the petition of delinquency. We disagree.

The record indicates that at a prior hearing defendant's counsel specifically agreed to a trial date beyond the speedy trial time; as a result, defendant effectively waived his right to speedy trial. Long v. State, 513 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); J.B. v. Korda, 436 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180; see Smith v. State, 482 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

F.A.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 15, 1988
522 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

F.A.T. v. State

Case Details

Full title:F.A.T., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 15, 1988

Citations

522 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Pannier v. State

Therefore, defendant's assertion through counsel at the December fifth hearing had the effect of his agreeing…