Opinion

State v. Sutton

  • 269 So. 2d 712
  • 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5925
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Nov 15, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Mann
On the bench
Liles, Mann, Pierce
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 97.2%

Overruled in part by State v. Bassham, 352 So. 2d 55 (1977)

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled in part by State v. Bassham, 352 So. 2d 55 (1977)

    To the extent that Hargrove v. State, 281 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and State v. Sutton, supra, are inconsistent herewith, they are overruled.
    Supreme Court of FloridaSep 15, 1977in partRead it
  • Declined to follow by Eaddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 98 (1977)

    As a detainer does not operate to place the person against whom it is issued in custody as a result of the conduct which gives rise to the detainer, we respectfully decline to follow the decisions of our sister court in Hargrove and Sutton, supra." 297 So.2d at 573.
    District Court of Appeal of FloridaOct 18, 1977Read it
  • Declined to follow by State Ex Rel. Williams v. Eastmoore, 297 So. 2d 572 (1974)

    As a detainer does not operate to place the person against whom it is issued in custody as a result of the conduct which gives rise to the detainer, we respectfully decline to follow the decisions of our sister court in Hargrove and Sutton, supra.
    District Court of Appeal of FloridaJul 12, 1974Read it

The opinion

MANN, Judge.

A warrant was issued in Hendry County on October 19, 1971. Sutton was taken into custody on that date in Polk County, on an independent charge. Hendry County’s officers knew where Sutton was and lodged a detainer. Upon failure of the State to bring Sutton to trial within 18Ó days he moved for discharge under the speedy trial rule, CrPR 3.191, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly granted discharge. The State’s argument that the time began to run from the time the warrant was formally served on Sutton is without merit. He was in custody on these as well as other charges. There is no showing of non-availability under CrPR 3.191(e). He could have been tried within the time allowed by the rule. The State cannot enlarge the time merely by delaying deliberately the formal service of the warrant.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.