Legal Opinion

State v. Rohm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 8, 1993No. 92-1792PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

FARMER, Judge.

When the speedy trial time provided in rule 3.191(a)1 has fully run, and the trial court grants a timely motion for discharge during the unexpired 15-day window period2 which is reversed on appeal, does the state on remand have the 15-day window period to bring the defendant to trial, or instead the 90-day appellate mandate period?3 Under the facts of this case, we hold that the 15-day window period applies and affirm the court’s discharge after remand.

In the first appeal in this case, State v. Rohm, 596 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we reversed the speedy trial discharge…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lowe v. PriceSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  2. State v. KrugerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  3. State v. EubanksDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  4. State v. RohmDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. RohmSupreme Court of Florida · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API