State v. Martinez
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Because the defendant had moved for and secured at least one previous continuance, thus effecting a waiver of his speedy trial rights, his motion for discharge filed under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 was not well taken. Brown v. State, 561 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ehn v. Smith, 426 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); State v. Brown, 412 So.2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Nevertheless the trial court dismissed the prosecution because the state had not brought the motion on for hearing within five days as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(3). See Massey v. Graziano, 564 So.2d 287…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ariza v. CycmanickDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
- Ehn v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Massey v. GrazianoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- State v. BrownDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- Lenard v. MOXLEY IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTYDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McKinney v. YawnDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
- Holston v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
- DARWIN RIVERA ALMODOVAR v. STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2020