Summary
relying on the holding in Bowens v. Tyson, 578 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1991)
Summary of this case from Pugh v. Sec'y, DOCOpinion
Nos. 76260, 76310 and 76311.
June 20, 1991.
Three Consolidated Applications for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance; First District — Case Nos. 90-1484, 90-1665 90-1666.
C. Dennis Roberts, Public Defender and Jonathan W. Dingus, Asst. Public Defender, Third Judicial Circuit, Lake City, for Valdez.
John J. Terhune, Live Oak, for Demers and Ory.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
These consolidated petitions seek review of McCaskill v. McMillan, 563 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the question presented regarding the interpretation of rule 3.133(b)(6), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, concerning the timely charging of defendants by indictment or information as a matter of great public importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
This rule has been renumbered as rule 3.134, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See In re Amendment to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.133(b)(6) (Pre-Trial Release), 573 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1991).
We answered this question in Bowens v. Tyson, 578 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1991), holding that rule 3.133(b)(6) does not mandate a defendant's automatic release if the state files an information or indictment after the thirty-day filing period has expired but before the court hears the defendant's motion for release. In accordance with Bowens, we approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which KOGAN, J., concurs.
I agree with the result for the reasons stated in my opinion in Bowens v. Tyson, 578 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1991) (Barkett, J., specially concurring).
KOGAN, J., concurs.