Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

390 So. 2d 457

Docket No. 78-334.

CS v. State

C.S., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 25, 1980.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1980-11-25

Relies on Law Firm of Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige v. Koebrich · Judge v. State

Decided 1980-11-25

¶1*458 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Peter Raben, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ. and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge.

¶4VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge.

¶5Appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court, which adjudicated the appellant a delinquent. By this appeal, the appellant alleges the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for discharge pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180, in that the appellant was denied his right to speedy trial.

¶6We agree and reverse the order appealed. The appellant was taken into custody October 4, 1977 on a charge of attempted purse snatching. Trial date was set for December 21, 1977, at which time the appellant's special public defender failed to appear because he had not been notified of the appointment. At this time, the trial court orally continued the cause; however, the trial judge did not enter an order specifically extending speedy trial reciting the reasons for the extension as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(c). Thereafter, the speedy trial period elapsed and the appellant moved for discharge, which was denied. He was then tried and adjudicated delinquent.

¶7An oral continuance on the court's own motion does not extend the time for speedy trial, without a finding that the interests of justice will be served by such extension and a recitation of the reasons for such extension, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(c). See: In Interest of J.R.S. v. Hastings,374 So.2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); In Interest of R.L.P. v. Korda,380 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

¶8Therefore, absent a showing that the appellant was in any way at fault in delaying the adjudicatory hearing, we must reverse the order appealed and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to discharge the child.

¶9Reversed and remanded with directions.

/390/so2d/457 · .json · Public domain