From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 1, 1993
622 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1993)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1993), the court held that the "window of recapture" does not apply in such cases.

Summary of this case from Guzzetta v. Hamrick
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

No. 79976.

July 1, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, James C. Hauser, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review State v. Williams, 597 So.2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), based on conflict with State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Williams.

Williams was arrested and charged with burglary of a dwelling, petit theft, and dealing in stolen property based on incidents that occurred between March 1 and 5, 1991. Several days prior to the running of the speedy trial period, the State entered a nolle prosequi and Williams was released from custody. Four days after expiration of the speedy trial period, the State refiled identical charges based on the same incidents and Williams was rearrested. The trial court granted Williams' motion for discharge, ruling that the nol pros did not toll the running of the speedy trial period. The district court reversed, relying on Zabrani v. Cowart, 502 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), approved, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1987), and recognizing conflict with State v. Agee, 588 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

We have since resolved this issue in State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993), wherein we approved the district court decision in Agee and disapproved Zabrani. Accordingly, we quash the district court decision below in Williams and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion in Agee.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.

Summaries of

Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 1, 1993
622 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1993)

In Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1993), the court held that the "window of recapture" does not apply in such cases.

Summary of this case from Guzzetta v. Hamrick

In Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1993), the court observed that the state had entered a nol pros several days prior to the running of the "speedy trial period," and four days after expiration of the "speedy trial period," the state re-filed the identical charges.

Summary of this case from State v. P.S

In Williams, however, the facts given are insufficient for us to conclude with certainty whether the court, in referring to the "speedy trial period" was referring solely to the 175 days provided in Rule 3.191(a), or, as argued here, by the state, the 175 days plus the 15-day recapture period, as provided in Rule 3.191(p)(3).

Summary of this case from State v. P.S
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERVIN EUGENE WILLIAMS, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jul 1, 1993

Citations

622 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1993)

Citing Cases

Guzzetta v. Hamrick

State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993).Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1994); Farina v. Perez, 647…

P.S. v. State

We have for review the following question certified to be of great public importance by the Third District…

9 Citing Cases