From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 5, 1984
443 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 82-1554.

January 5, 1984.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Shawn L. Briese, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


Whether or not to extend the speedy trial period for "exceptional circumstances" under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(3) is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. State ex rel. Canup v. Langston, 341 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We find no abuse of discretion in the twelve-day extension of the speedy trial period on the State's motion, grounded upon the delay in receiving a crime lab report, where the record supports the trial court's determination that the State had used due diligence to secure the report but had been unable to do so in sufficient time to try defendant for possession of controlled substances within the prescribed 180-day period. See Dedmon v. State, 400 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant's motion for discharge was filed prior to the expiration of the extended time for trial, and was correctly denied.

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Allen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 5, 1984
443 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Allen v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTINE CAROLYN ALLEN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jan 5, 1984

Citations

443 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Opinion No. 1997-314

The Court of Appeals stated that the affidavit established that expert analysis of the physical evidence was…