17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 43a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701MOMO
Criminal law — Speedy trial — Where defendant did not waive right to speedy trial, and state did not file information until well after speedy trial had expired, defendant is entitled to immediate discharge, and state is not entitled to recapture period — Further, defendant is entitled to discharge because he filed notice of expiration of speedy trial, but hearing on motion was not held, and defendant was not brought to trial within fifteen days of filing notice
STATE OF FLORIDA vs. SILVERIO MISAEL MOMOTIC, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502009CT030680AXXXMB “K”.October 21, 2009.Ted S. Booras, Judge. Counsel: Ira D. Karmelin.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR DISCHARGE
THIS CAUSE was before the Court upon Defendant’s motions for discharge claiming a violation of his right to speedy trial as interpreted by State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993) and after having filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial. The Court having heard from the Parties and being otherwise fully advised in the premises makes the following findings of fact and law:
Defendant has never waived his right to a speedy trial nor taken any act which could constitute a waiver of speedy trial. Defendant was arrested on June 7, 2009; thus, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a) required charges be filed and Defendant be brought to trial on or before September 5, 2009. The State did not file an Information in the Instant Cause until September 21, 2009, well after speedy trial had already expired; thus, Defendant is entitled to an immediate discharge and the State is not entitled to the recapture period contained within Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993). Notwithstanding the State’s error, on October 5, 2009, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p)(2), Defendant filed his notice of expiration of speedy trial and served a copy of it on the State. Since filing his notice, no hearing was held on the notice as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p)(3) and Defendant was not brought to trial within fifteen (15) days of Defendant filing his notice of expiration of speedy trial. As such, Defendant is entitled to be discharged under both theories of law he presented. THEREFORE, IT IS
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that both of Defendant’s motions for discharge are HEREBY GRANTED and DEFENDANT IS FOREVER DISCHARGED from the crime of DUI allegedly occurring on or about June 7, 2009.
