Davis v. State

Since there was no showing either that the witness in question was unforeseeably or unavoidably absent or that his presence was “uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial,” so that none of the prerequisites of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(1)1 were satisfied, the trial court plainly erred in nonetheless continuing the trial and extending the speedy trial time on account of his asserted unavailability. It follows that the defendant’s motion for discharge made on the expiration of sixty days after his demand under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2) should have been granted. For this reason, the judgment…