From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ferras

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 16, 1985
467 So. 2d 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-950.

April 10, 1985. Rehearing Denied May 16, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Frank A. Orlando, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carl H. Lida of Law Offices of Carl H. Lida, P.A., Miami, for appellee.


We reverse and remand upon the authority of Jenkins v. State, 389 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1980). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(g) calls for a ninety-day extension, beginning on receipt of the mandate, and is equally applicable whether the state or defendant brings the interlocutory appeal and regardless of whether the appeal succeeds or fails. Absent the rule, a ninety-day extension is appropriate in all such cases. See Jenkins, supra, and numerous district court opinions, e.g., State v. McQuay, 423 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court's initial order, granting the ninety-day extension, which it was later persuaded to withdraw, was correct.

HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Ferras

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 16, 1985
467 So. 2d 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

State v. Ferras

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. JOHN FERRAS, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 16, 1985

Citations

467 So. 2d 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. Rohm

Other courts have applied this construction to rule 3.191(g). See, e.g., State v. Ferras, 467 So.2d 765 (Fla.…