Case Name: Salvador SALZERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-09
Citations: 697 So. 2d 553
Docket Number: No. 96-2678
Parties: Salvador SALZERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 697
Pages: 553–558

Head Matter:
Salvador SALZERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-2678.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 9, 1997.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Erin E. Dardis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
FLETCHER, Judge.
The defendant, Salvador Salzero, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, on the ground that the trial court improperly denied his motion for discharge, which motion alleged that the State had failed to follow rule 3.191(p)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the following reasons, we reverse the denial of Salzero's motion and direct the trial court to discharge him from the crimes.
Salzero was charged with the crimes on February 11, 1996 and filed his notice of expiration of the 175-day post-arrest speedy trial period on August 5, 1996. The trial court held the hearing on that notice on August 6,1996. Under the rule the trial was required to be held within ten days of the August 6 hearing, i.e., no later than August 16, 1996. However, the trial court determined that trial had previously been set for August 19, 1996, and apparently concluded that since that date was within fifteen days of the expiration of the 175-day speedy trial period, Salzero could properly be tried at that time under the rule's "window" provisions.
When the case was called on August 19, 1996 (thirteen days after the notice hearing), Salzero moved for discharge, asserting that rule 3.191(p)(3) requires that the defendant be brought to trial within ten days of the hearing on the notice of expiration, and since the ten-day post-hearing period expired on August 16, he could not be brought to trial thereafter and was entitled to discharge. The trial court disagreed and Salzero entered a plea to the charges, reserving the speedy trial issue for appeal.
We conclude that the trial court misread the rule. The language of rule 3.191(p)(3) requires that a defendant asserting speedy trial rights be brought to trial within ten days of the hearing on his notice of expiration. This ten-day period is neither contracted nor expanded by the timing of the hearing within the five days allowed for it under the same rule; i.e., whether the notice hearing is held on the first day (as here) or the fifth day following the filing of the notice, the trial must be held no more than ten days from the hearing on the notice. Since Salze-ro's trial was set for a date after the expiration of the ten-day period through no fault of his own, he was entitled to "be forever discharged from the crime." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(p)(3).
This issue was addressed in State v. Thomas, 659 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which involved a like situation, the trial having been set for fourteen days after the notice hearing, but otherwise within the rule's total fifteen-day window. In his opinion concurring with the majority opinion affirming the discharge, Judge Cope wrote:
"The trial court's interpretation of the rule was correct. The text of the rule controls over the commentS[ ] The rule provides for a five-day period to have the hearing on the notice of expiration, followed by a ten-day period to take the case to trial. In some cases, like the present one, the total time from the filing of the notice of expiration to the last day of the window period will be less than fifteen days."
Id. at 1323 (Cope, J., concurring).
The dissent herein appears to agree that the rule has been violated, but would conclude that such was harmless error as Salzero made no showing of prejudice. The rule, however, establishes prejudice where a defendant is not brought to trial by the tenth day following the notice hearing and mandates discharge for such violation.
"A defendant not brought to trial within the 10-day period through no fault of the defendant . shall be forever discharged from the crime."
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(p)(3)(emphasis added).
Thus the dissent would effectively amend the rule by adding the requirement that a defendant be discharged if the defendant alleges and proves prejudice. However, only our supreme court can amend the rule, not this court or the other district courts. State v. Bryant, 276 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 280 So.2d 683 (Fla.1973). If the rule needs to be changed, it should be done properly and not on an ad hoc basis.
We return now to the language of rule 3.191(p)(3) that requires for discharge that the delay beyond the ten-day period be "through no fault of the defendant." The transcripts herein reveal that Salzero's counsel kept silent during the crucial notice hearing and thus contributed to the trial judge's violation of the rule. Had Salzero's counsel complained at that time that the rule would be violated by a trial on August 19, 1996, the trial court could have avoided the error. Were it not for the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1978), holding that a defense counsel is under no duty to correct a trial court's erroneous impression that the trial date would be timely, we would hold that Salzero, through his counsel, was not without fault that the trial date was beyond the time contemplated by rule 3.191(p)(3), and thus that Salzero was not entitled to be discharged. We do observe that in 1978 the supreme court in Stuart v. State was dealing with an earlier version of rule 3.191 which did not contain the "no fault" language we are discussing here, which language was added in 1984. See The Florida Bar re: Amendment to Rules — Criminal Procedure, 462 So.2d 386 (Fla.1984). As a consequence, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
"DOES THE 1984 AMENDMENT TO RULE 3.191, NOW RULE 3.191(p)(3), WHICH REQUIRES A DEFENDANT'S DISCHARGE SHOULD HE OR SHE NOT BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE RULE'S TEN-DAY PERIOD THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE DEFENDANT, SUPERSEDE THE HOLDING IN STUART V STATE, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1978) THAT A DEFENSE COUNSEL IS UNDER NO DUTY TO CORRECT A TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THAT THE TRIAL DATE AS SET BY THE COURT WOULD BE TIMELY?"
Under the present circumstances, however, we hold that the trial court erred in not granting Salzero's discharge from the crimes as mandated by rule 3.191(p)(3).
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge Salzero from the crimes; conflict certified; question certified.
JORGENSON, COPE, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.
. Which reads:
"No later than 5 days from the date of the filing of a notice of expiration of speedy trial time, the court shall hold a hearing on the notice and, unless the court finds that one of the reasons set forth in subsection (j) [defense delays, continuances, unavailability, invalid demand] exists, shall order that the defendant be brought to trial within 10 days. A defendant not brought to trial within the 10-day period through no fault of the defendant, on motion of the defendant or the court, shall be forever discharged from the crime."
. We shall return to the question of fault on Salzero's part.
. The committee note to the 1984 amendment to rule 3.191 advises that the intent was to provide the state attorney with fifteen days within which to bring a defendant to trial from the date of the filing of the motion for discharge. The State urges us to apply that suggested intent As Judge Cope noted, however, the text of the rule is controlling.
. The First and Second District Courts have added a "showing of prejudice" requirement to the rule. State v. Driggers, 680 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), rev. denied, 689 So.2d 1069 (Fla.1997); State v. McGruder, 664 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Climpson v. State, 528 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We certify conflict with these decisions.