From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Del Rio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1986
483 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-169.

February 11, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Richard Yale Feder, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

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

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.


The order discharging the defendant under the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 (1984), is reversed because he was not continuously available for trial during the critical 180 day period. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e). Specifically, the defendant (a) failed to appear at all on a date duly set for his trial, see Rule 3.191(e)(1); State v. Exposito, 327 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and (b) moved for discovery as to a confidential informant, thus indicating his unreadiness under Rule 3.191(e)(2), on the very day of a later trial setting. See State v. Toyos, 448 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited.

At a September 5, 1984 calendar call, Del Rio's three co-defendants successfully moved for a continuance as to them of a September 10 trial date. Del Rio did not concur and stated that he would move for a severance and would be ready on September 10. On that day, neither he nor his counsel was present and no motion for severance had been filed. The trial court thereupon continued Del Rio's case to the date previously assigned the co-defendants. Compare Miner v. Westlake, 478 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1985).

Reversed.


Summaries of

State v. Del Rio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1986
483 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

State v. Del Rio

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. JULIO DEL RIO, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 11, 1986

Citations

483 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Here, no proceedings were ever scheduled and the trial was never set. Thus Williams cannot be considered…