 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clarke1/17/2003
The State of Florida appeals the trial court's order discharging Gerald E. Clarke from DUI manslaughter charges based on a violation of his speedy trial rights.
On January 26, 1998, Clarke was charged with DUI manslaughter for causing the death of Nicholas Aristizabal on November 9, 1997. After the trial court excluded evidence of the legal blood draw, the State sought to present the results of the medical blood draw by submitting Clarke's medical records from the hospital. Clarke objected, and the trial court ruled that the medical blood draw results would be excluded unless the State could satisfy the predicates described in Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992), and State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1980). In reaching this decision, the trial court relied on this court's decision in Michie v. State, 632 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
After receiving this court's decision affirming the exclusion of the results of the legal blood draw on October 25, 1999, Clarke filed his demand for speedy trial. Although the State timely obtained the medical records, it had difficulty in determining the witnesses who would be needed to establish the Robertson/Bender predicate as required by the trial court's ruling. On the morning of trial, December 14, 1999, Clarke objected to certain witnesses and documents, alleging that the State had failed to timely comply with the rules of discovery. The trial court held a Richardson hearing and found that since the State had not attempted to find these witnesses while the legal blood issue was on appeal, the failure to timely disclose witnesses' names and documents was a substantial discovery violation resulting in prejudice to Clarke. Accordingly, the trial court excluded the documents and one of the State's essential witnesses.
As a result of these rulings, the first requiring the State to establish the predicate and the second excluding essential evidence, the State advised that it could not proceed to trial and moved to extend speedy trial to allow appellate certiorari review of the trial court's decisions. Clarke objected, and the trial court denied the request for an extension. When Clarke's speedy trial time period expired, he moved for discharge. The trial court granted his motion, and the State appealed.
When the State requests an extension of speedy trial for the purpose of pursuing an interlocutory appeal of a trial court's ruling, "a trial court must grant this extension for the period necessary to complete the appellate proceedings, unless it makes a factual determination that the appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay, upon grounds which are frivolous and not fairly debatable." State v. Barnett, 366 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1978). Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the language "for appeals by the state" contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(I)(4) includes "all appellate applications made by the state." Nelson v. State, 414 So. 2d 505 at 508 (Fla. 1982). Thus, the mandate of Barnett applies to petitions seeking certiorari review as well as to interlocutory appeals.
Our decision then turns on whether the record here reflects that the trial judge made a factual finding that the petition was filed for the purpose of delay and was frivolous and not fairly debatable. Although the trial court did not make these specific findings, it is clear from the record that the trial judge was frustrated with the State's lack of diligence in determining the proper witness needed to present its case. However, the record does not suggest that he reached the conclusion that the petition was filed in bad faith. Accordingly, we must reverse for it was error for the trial court
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|