IN THE INTEREST OF M. B., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT E. LEE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent his trial, claiming violation of his speedy trial rights under Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.180. The court granted the writ, finding the trial court failed to comply with the rule's requirement to enter a written order extending the 90-day speedy trial period with stated reasons.
The court held that the trial court violated the speedy trial rule by failing to comply with Rule 8.180(c), which requires that any extension of the 90-day period be accompanied by a written order reciting the reasons for the extension. Without such an order and without a waiver by the petitioner, the entry of the order denying dismissal was error.
[1] A juvenile's speedy trial period is tolled only upon full compliance with statutory requirements for extending such periods, including a motion by a party, a hearing, a f…
[2] General congestion of a court's docket, lack of diligent preparation, failure to obtain available witnesses, or other avoidable or foreseeable delays do not constitute go…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When the speedy trial rule has been violated, a writ of prohibition is proper.”
Establishes the legal basis for the petitioner's remedy and the appellate court's jurisdiction to grant the writ.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.B. was arrested on December 13, 1979. On March 10, 1980, trial was scheduled within the 90-day requirement and petitioner indicated readiness to pro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adjudicatory Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Petitioner, a juvenile, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit judge from proceeding with his trial; he contends that his right to a speedy trial as provided in Rule 8.180, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, has been violated.1 When the speedy trial rule has been violated, a writ of prohibition is proper. Sibert v. Hare, 276 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The pertinent dates and facts are:
1. December 13,1979:
2. March 10,1980:
3. March 10,1980:
4. April 7,1980:
5. April 9,1980:
Petitioner arrested.
Trial scheduled within the 90 day requirement. Petitioner indicates he is ready to proceed without an attorney.
An application for and an order appointing the public defender. Motion for dismissal.
Order denying dismissal.
Petitioner alleges that the hearing was continued because of the illness of the judge; however, this is not reflected in the record. The court minutes recite that petitioner appeared on March 10,1980 and stated that he was ready for trial. Following that, petitioner made an application for the appointment of the Public Defender and one was appointed. The application for and order appointing the Public Defender are in the record. No order resetting the trial date and no waiver by defendant of the speedy trial rule appear. Even if we could assume that petitioner orally moved to continue the hearing to enable him to consult the Public Defender, the judge did not comply with rule 8.180(c) as he failed to enter an order reciting the reasons for the extension.
The only other documents appearing in the record were a motion to dismiss filed on April 7, 1980 and an order denying the dismissal on April 9, 1980.
No response to the petition has been filed on behalf of the trial court; therefore, this court must assume the record before it is complete.
There being no order of extension as required by the rule and no waiver of the 90-day period by petitioner, the entry of the order denying the dismissal was error. Writ of prohibition is issued and the trial court is directed to discharge petitioner. SHARP, J., concurs.
ORFINGER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. Speedy Trial.
(a) Every case in which a petition has been filed alleging a child to be delinquent, ungovernable or dependent shall be brought to an adjudicatory hearing without demand within ninety (90) days of the earliest of the following dates:
(1) The date the complaint is filed with the intake officer as provided by statute. (2) The date the child was taken into custody-
(3) The date the petition was filed.
(b) If the adjudicatory hearing is not begun within ninety (90) days or an extension thereof as hereinafter provided the petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.
(c) The court may extend the period of time established by this order on motion of any party, after hearing, on a finding that the interest of justice will be served by such extension. The order will recite the reasons for such extension. The general congestion of the court’s docket, lack of diligent preparation, or failure to obtain available witnesses, or other avoidable or foreseeable delays shall not constitute grounds for such extension.
(d)Effect of Mistrial; Order of New Trial. A person who is to be tried again shall be brought to trial within ninety (90) days from the date of declaration of a mistrial by the trial court, the date of an order by the trial court, granting a new trial, the date of an order by the trial court granting a motion to vacate a judgment, or the date of receipt by the trial court of a mandate, order, or notice of whatever form from an appellate or other reviewing court which makes possible a new trial, whichever is last in time.
ORFINGER, Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur with the decision, but only because the record before us does not show an order of the trial court granting a continuance or extending the time for speedy trial or reciting the time for extension, or finding that the “interest of justice will be served by such an extension.” In the state of the record before us, we are left to speculate if the adjudicatory hearing was continued because on the date set for the hearing, which was within the 90-day limit, the juvenile requested and was granted the appointment of a public defender.
However, we could just as well speculate that since the trial was continued, the public defender was requested and appointed. We recognize the tremendous burdens on the trial courts, but because the Supreme Court in adopting the Rules of Juvenile Procedure specifically requires an order of court extending speedy trial and reciting the reasons, we must expect the trial courts to comply. Here, if in fact the trial was continued because the juvenile changed his mind about representing himself and requested counsel, a valid reason for continuance and extension of speedy trial, a brief order would have satisfied the rule. See In the Interest of R.L.P. v. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); In the Interest of J.R.S. v. Hastings, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L. G. v. State, 405 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rse renders it unnecessary to consider the appellant’s contentions that the order, as subsequently reduced to writing, did not conform with the requirements of Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(c), see C.S. v. State, 390 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); M.B. v. Lee, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) and that the “continuous availability” requirement of the criminal speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191, is not even impliedly (as it is clearly not explicitly) pertinent to the application of the juvenile equivalent, Fla.R.Juv…
-
Donnell Rogers v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 411 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…the trial court failed to do. In the present case, Rule 3.191 does not specifically require a trial court to state “. .. and the speedy trial period is hereby extended” in order to effectuate an order of extension. For similar reasons, M. B. v. Lee, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), does not support Rogers’ position: “[T]he judge did not comply with rule 8.180(c) as he failed to enter an order reciting the reasons for the extension.” 388 So. 2d at 1365. In M. M. v. State, 407 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 8…
-
V.C. v. The Honorable Ralph B. Ferguson, Jr., 422 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…er a speedy trial violation has occurred. See, e.g., Durrance v. Rudd, 398 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ballard v. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Bates v. Keating, 396 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); In the Interest of M.B. v. Lee, 388 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); State ex rel. Mullen v. Swigert, 352 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State ex rel. Mitchell v. Beverly, 352 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State ex rel. Dean v.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The LAW Firm OF Patterson v. Gertrude Kahn Koebrich, 374 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Sibert v. Hare, 276 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Judge v. State, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of R. L. P. v. Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 380 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)