Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. ELIGIO E. VILLAVICENCIO, JOSE HERNANDEZ HERRERA AND JUAN MANUEL PAZ, APPELLEES.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal by the state from an order of the trial court discharging the appellees under the provisions of the speedy trial rule. At issue is whether the state was obligated to secure an order staying proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the state's appeal of an order granting a motion to suppress. We hold that the state was obligated to secure such an order under the express provisions of Rule 9.140(c)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective March 1, 1978.

The state contends that it is entitled to rely on the automatic stay provisions of Section 924.071(2), Florida Statutes (1977). We have previously rejected such a contention, even before the adoption of Rule 9.140(c)(2), on the basis that Rule 3.191(d)(2)(iv), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, required an order from the trial court extending speedy trial time during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal filed by the state. State v. Cannon, 332 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). With the adoption of Rule 9.140(c)(2), we now believe that the Supreme Court has resolved any doubts as to the necessity of such an order.

Accordingly, the order of discharge is affirmed.

DOWNEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. VILLAVICENCIO
(Jan 4, 1980)