State Ex Rel. Smith v. Nesbitt
355 So. 2d 202 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's failure to appear in court pursuant to a mailed notice does not render them "unavailable for trial" for speedy trial purposes if the defendant is not in custody, on bail, or on personal recognizance before the specific court where the new charges are pending.
Facts:
- On December 1, 1976, Richard Victor Smith was arrested for felony battery upon a police officer, resisting an officer with violence, and misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
- Smith was subsequently released from jail on bail.
- On December 12, 1976, a committing magistrate held a preliminary hearing and reduced the charges to misdemeanors, binding Smith over for trial in the County Court of Dade County.
- Smith was allowed to remain on bail for the misdemeanor charges pending in the County Court.
- On December 28, 1976, the state filed a direct information in the Circuit Court, a different court, reinstating the original felony charges.
- The state mailed a written notice of arraignment for the Circuit Court case to Smith's last known address.
- On January 14, 1977, Smith did not appear for the arraignment in the Circuit Court.
- On August 12, 1977, Smith was arrested on a capias (arrest warrant) related to his failure to appear in Circuit Court.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a direct information against Richard Victor Smith in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
- After Smith failed to appear for arraignment, the Circuit Court issued an alias capias for his arrest.
- On September 21, 1977, Smith filed a motion for discharge in the Circuit Court, arguing his speedy trial rights had been violated.
- The respondent circuit court judge, Lenore C. Nesbitt, denied the motion.
- Smith, as relator, filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, seeking to prevent the trial court from proceeding with the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's failure to appear for arraignment in a new court case, pursuant to a mailed notice, render them "unavailable for trial" under Florida's speedy trial rule, thereby tolling the speedy trial clock, when the defendant was on bail for different, lesser charges in a separate court arising from the same incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Hubbart, J.
No. A defendant's non-appearance in court after receiving written notice does not constitute non-availability for trial unless the defendant is under the jurisdiction of that specific court through custody, bail, or personal recognizance. The court reasoned that Smith's bail was for the misdemeanor charges in County Court, not the felony charges in Circuit Court. Therefore, he was under no legal obligation by the terms of his bail to appear in Circuit Court, and his failure to do so was not evidence of non-availability. The state bears the initial burden of presenting evidence of non-availability, which it failed to do here. By choosing to file charges in a different court than the one the magistrate assigned, the state ran the risk that the speedy trial period would expire if it did not secure the defendant's presence before that new court within the 180-day limit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the concept of "availability for trial" under Florida's speedy trial rule, establishing that a defendant's legal obligations are specific to the court that has jurisdiction over them. It serves as a check on prosecutorial power, preventing the state from tolling the speedy trial clock by simply mailing a notice to a defendant who is not on bail or otherwise under the authority of the court where new charges are filed. The ruling emphasizes that if the state chooses to override a magistrate's decision and file charges in a different court, it bears the responsibility of formally bringing the defendant before that new court to maintain its jurisdiction within the speedy trial window.
Unlock the full brief for State Ex Rel. Smith v. Nesbitt