RICHARD L. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Richard Davis was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 15 years after a jury trial. He appealed challenging the denial of his speedy trial motion and the trial court's entrapment instruction, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in either issue.
The trial court did not err in denying the speedy trial motion because the time limitations no longer applied after the defendant agreed to continuances and requested a competency examination. The trial court also properly instructed the jury on the defense of entrapment in accordance with established law.
[1] A defendant's request for a psychological examination to determine competency to stand trial and subsequent agreement to a continuance waive the strict time limitations o…
[2] When the speedy trial rule's time limitations are waived, a trial judge is authorized to set a trial date within a reasonable time.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the time limitations in the speedy trial rule were no longer applicable and the trial judge as in the case at bar was authorized to set a trial date within a reasonable time”
Establishes that defendant's voluntary continuances and agreement to delay eliminated the strict speedy trial timeline
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was arrested and charged with robbery and assault with intent to commit murder. He requested a psychological examination to determine competency…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against for (1) robbery and (2) assault with intent to commit murder, tried by jury, found guilty of robbery and sentenced to serve 15 years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge because he was ready to stand trial 180 days after his arrest and the failure to discharge deprived him of his right to a speedy trial.
The record in the case sub judice reflects that the defendant requested a psychological examination to determine his competency to stand trial and after he was adjudged competent on March 19, 1973 agreed on July 9, 1973 to a continuance until September 24, 1973. After defendant’s motion for discharge was denied, trial was set for November 26, 1973.
In light of the above facts, we find that the time limitations in the speedy trial rule were no longer applicable and the trial judge as in the case at bar was authorized to set a trial date within a reasonable time. See RCrP 3.191(d)(2), (3), and State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 861. Thus, this point of appellant must fail.
Defendant secondly contends the trial court gave an erroneous instruction on the issue of entrapment. We cannot agree.
The defense of entrapment is available to those persons who are induced by an officer of the law to commit a crime which they had otherwise no intention of committing and, conversely, not available to those persons with the requisite criminal intent who are furnished merely with the opportunity to commit a crime by an officer of the law acting in good faith with the purpose of detecting and preventing crime. Dupuy v. State, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 825.
We find that the entrapment instruction given by the trial judge reflects the above rule as to the defense of entrapment and further that this defense properly was submitted to the jury for its determination. See State v. Rouse, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 79.
We also have considered appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be lacking in merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 315 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 302 So. 2d 464. ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Isaac Don Butler & Gerald Nickles v. Honorable Ralph O. Cullen, 253 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1971)
- Dupuy v. State, 141 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)