 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clarke2/7/2002
endant for a speedy trial violation was never directly at issue in McNulty. Rather, the only issue discussed by the McNulty Court was whether a district court could review a dismissal of a charging information if the case had already been discharged for a speedy trial violation. The McNulty Court held that the discharge on a speedy trial violation would moot the State's appeal of the dismissal of the charging information. Thus, McNulty only addressed the appeal of the dismissal of the charging information and not the appeal of a discharge (because a discharge never occurred).
Applying the above interpretation of McNulty to the facts of the instant case leads to the following analysis: In the instant case, there were two appeals--the appeal from the trial court's suppression/sanction order and the appeal from the discharge. Since the State was unable to obtain an extension of the speedy trial time, under this Court's holding in McNulty, the district court lost jurisdiction to consider the State's appeal of the suppression order when the trial court discharged Clarke based upon a speedy trial violation. Nevertheless, the State still has the right to appeal the discharge, and the district court still has jurisdiction to consider the discharge pursuant to rule 9.140(c)(1)(F). Should the district court ultimately conclude that the trial court's discharge was in error, the State's appeal of the trial court's suppression/sanction order will no longer be moot and the district court's review of that order may proceed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court should not have dismissed the State's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we grant the petition and order that the Second District Court of Appeal reinstate the State's appeal. However, because we trust that the Second District Court of Appeal will fully comply with the dictates of this order, we withhold issuance of the writ.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding - Writ of Mandamus
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|