Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellant contended that his rights under Florida's speedy trial rule were violated following the state's procedural actions. Initially arrested for grand theft resulting in significant financial losses to his business partner, the appellant moved for discharge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. The state responded by nolle prossing the grand theft charges, only to file new charges of forgery concerning four checks. The appellant argued that these forgery charges arose from the same criminal episode as the nolle prossed grand theft charges, which the speedy trial rule seeks to prevent. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, and upon appeal, the appellate court found the appellant was not afforded a necessary evidentiary hearing to substantiate the alleged connection between the original and new charges. As a result, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, determining that if the grand theft charges were indeed based on the same conduct as the forgery charges, discharge would be warranted. The appellate court affirmed all other aspects of the case, with concurrences from Judges Warner and Polen.
Legal Issues Addressed
Nolle Prosequi and Subsequent Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the trial court's decision due to the lack of an evidentiary hearing to establish whether the nolle prossed charges were related to the new charges, which would violate the speedy trial rule.
Reasoning: The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the grand theft charges were partially based on the checks in question.
Requirement for Evidentiary Hearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appellant was not given a full evidentiary hearing to present evidence supporting his claim that the new charges were based on the same conduct as the initial charges.
Reasoning: Roberts was not given a full evidentiary hearing regarding the connection between the nolle prossed charges and the forgery charges.
Speedy Trial Rule under Florida Criminal Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated when the state nolle prossed the initial charges and filed new charges based on the same conduct.
Reasoning: The speedy trial rule prohibits the state from circumventing speedy trial rights by entering a nolle prosequi and subsequently pursuing new charges based on the same criminal episode.