Case ID: so2d_443/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ORFINGER, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christine Carolyn ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 82-1554.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Jan. 5, 1984.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Shawn L. Briese, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
   ORFINGER, Chief Judge.

Whether or not to extend the speedy trial period for “exceptional circumstances” under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(3) is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. State ex rel. Canup v. Langston, 341 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We find no abuse of discretion in the twelve-day extension of the speedy trial period on the State’s motion, grounded upon the delay in receiving a crime lab report, where the record supports the trial court’s determination that the State had used due diligence to secure the report but had been unable to do so in sufficient time to try defendant for possession of controlled substances within the prescribed 180-day period. See Dedmon v. State, 400 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant’s motion for discharge was filed prior to the expiration of the extended time for trial, and was correctly denied.

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and CO-WART, JJ., concur.