From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 17, 1982
422 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

Nos. AK-387 to AK-389.

November 17, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Union Court, Chester B. Chance, J.

David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.


Appellants, prison inmates, were discovered by prison officials with weapons on their persons, given Miranda warnings, interrogated, and placed in administrative confinement. Some three months thereafter, appellants were charged with and arrested for possession of a weapon by a State prisoner.

Appellants moved for discharge, alleging that their rights to speedy trial pursuant to Rule 3.191(a)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1981), had been violated in that more than 180 days had passed since they were given Miranda warnings and placed in administrative confinement. The trial court denied these motions. We conclude the evidence does not show an arrest as of the date of administrative confinement for purposes of commencing the 180-day speedy trial time and, accordingly, affirm.

McCORD, BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Powers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 17, 1982
422 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Powers v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL L. POWERS, ROBERT GRIGGS AND ROGER EUGENE SMITH, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 17, 1982

Citations

422 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Lynn v. State

Administrative confinement is not an arrest under the speedy trial rule and, therefore, it does not start…

Young v. State

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Height v. State, 459 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Powers v. State, 422 So.2d 981…