Case Name: William C. BULGIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent; Kinjal H. Patel, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent; Brandon P. Pelky, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 912 So. 2d 307
Docket Number: Nos. SC03-2214, SC03-2215, SC03-2217
Parties: William C. BULGIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Kinjal H. Patel, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent. Brandon P. Pelky, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: PARIENTE, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 912
Pages: 307–316

Head Matter:
William C. BULGIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Kinjal H. Patel, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent. Brandon P. Pelky, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.
Nos. SC03-2214, SC03-2215, SC03-2217.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 19, 2005.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 2005.
Fred M. Conrad, Tallahassee, FL, and Edward T. Bauer and Matthew K. Foster of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett and Foster, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Robert R. Wheeler, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondents.

Opinion:
ANSTEAD, J.
We have for review State v. Bulgin, 858 So.2d 1096, 1096-97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), which the First District Court of Appeal consolidated with two other cases, which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Williams v. State, 757 So.2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth herein, we quash the decision of the First District Court of Appeal and approve Williams. We hold that a criminal defendant's agreement to cooperate with the police, standing alone, does not act as a waiver of the right to a speedy trial or otherwise prevent the running of the time in which a defendant must be brought to trial.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The First District's opinion summarizes the facts of this case as they apply to all three petitioners:
The appellees/defendants were all arrested on December 15, 2000 for the sale of a controlled substance. The three agreed to cooperate with law enforcement in a continuing drug investigation and were released. On or about December 20, 2000, the defendants, accompanied by their attorneys, agreed to provide substantial assistance to law enforcement by conducting controlled drug buys. The law-enforcement officials agreed that no charges would be filed until their assistance was complete. These agreements satisfied the defendants' concern that formal charges and court appearances would jeopardize their covert assistance. The defendants did not sign speedy trial waivers and there was no discussion of the issue. After differing levels of cooperation with law enforcement, the defendants were arrested and charged. The defendants filed motions for discharge based on the speedy trial rule, Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191, which were granted by the trial courts.
State v. Bulgin, 858 So.2d 1096, 1096-97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The First District reversed the trial courts' decisions, ruling that the delays in holding trial were attributable to the petitioners. Id. at 1097 ("Here, the failure to hold trials for the defendants within the speedy trial rule was attributable to the defendants' cooperation agreements because the agreements postponed the charges and court proceedings until their assistance was complete."). The petitioners sought review in this Court, citing conflict with the Fifth District's decision in Williams v. State, 757 So.2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
WILLIAMS
In Williams v. State, 757 So.2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the defendant was arrested and thereafter entered into an agreement to assist police. Id. at 598. After acting as a drug informant for the police for several weeks, Williams was "re-arrested" by the State for the same offense. Id. However, because the State failed to bring the case to trial within 175 days from his initial arrest, he filed a motion for expiration and discharge under the speedy trial rule, which the trial court denied. Id. On appeal, the Fifth District reversed, and rejected the State's argument that because Williams was assisting the State, he was "unavailable" for trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(k). Id. at 600. Specifically, the Fifth District concluded:
A person is deemed "unavailable" for trial if the person or the person's counsel fails to attend a proceeding where their presence is required or the person or counsel is not ready for trial on the day trial is scheduled.
Here, no proceedings were ever scheduled and the trial was never set. Thus Williams cannot be considered "unavailable."
Id. The court also noted that there was no evidence that Williams had waived his right to a speedy trial or had otherwise engaged in conduct that would estop him from asserting his rights. Id. The court specifically rejected the State's claim that the speedy trial rule should not be followed because Williams was not placed in jail upon his initial arrest:
The state also argues that Williams should be estopped to claim speedy trial protections because he was free following his unarrest. However, a defendant need not remain in custody to have the benefits of the speedy trial rule. The speedy trial rule specifically provides that a person charged with a crime is entitled to the benefits of the rule whether the person is in custody or is at liberty on bail or recognizance or other pre-trial release condition. If the state is concerned about speedy trial, it could merely obtain a waiver from the defendant, as part of his substantial assistance agreement.
In addition, the speedy trial rule provides that the intent and effect of the rule shall not be avoided by the state by nolle prossing a crime and then prosecuting a new crime grounded on the same conduct or criminal episode. Just as the state cannot avoid the effect of the rule by the prosecutor's actions in nolle prossing a crime, the state should not be able to avoid the effect of the rule by the actions of the police in "unarrest-ing" the defendant.
Id. The State now asserts that we should hold that the petitioners were responsible for the State not bringing them to trial by virtue of their agreement to cooperate with the police. We decline to do so because we conclude such a holding would be contrary to the provisions and purpose of the speedy trial rule and the underlying constitutional right it protects.
ANALYSIS
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance and fundamental nature of a citizen's right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See e.g., Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 226, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967) ("The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution."). Further, the Court has held that it is the individual states' responsibility to provide an accused with clear parameters to assure the protection of the right to a speedy trial. Klopfer, 386 U.S. at 225-26, 87 S.Ct. 988; see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 523, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) ("The States, of course, are free to prescribe a reasonable period consistent with constitutional standards, but [the Supreme Court's] approach must be less precise.").
Consistent with this mandate, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a) requires that a defendant who is charged with a felony be brought to trial within 175 days of arrest, absent a more specific demand, and that those charged with a misdemeanor be tried within ninety days. Subdivision (p) outlines the proper remedy, including discharge, when the State fails to try a case within 175 days. However, that subdivision also provides: "No remedy shall be granted to any defendant under this rule until the court has made the required inquiry under subdivision (])." Subdivision (j), entitled "Delay and Continuances; Effect on Motion" states that there are four circumstances in which a pending motion for discharge is properly denied. Of the four exceptions, the State now relies upon two to deny petitioners relief: "(2) the failure to hold trial is attributable to the accused, a codefendant in the same trial, or their counsel; (3) the accused was unavailable for trial under subdivision (k).... " Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(j). In other words, the State asserts that its failure to bring the petitioners to trial "is attributable to the [fault of] the accused" and the petitioners' "unavailab[ility] for trial." We conclude that cooperation with the police, standing alone, does not constitute conduct contemplated by either of these exceptions to the rule.
Both Bulgin and Williams involve situations where defendants were arrested, cooperated with the police, and were arrested a second time on the same charges, but at no time waived their rights to a speedy trial. See Bulgin, 858 So.2d at 1096-97. In both cases, the State failed to bring the cases to trial within 175 days of the defendants' initial arrests. Compare Bulgin, 858 So.2d at 1096-97, with Williams, 757 So.2d at 598-99. The Bulgin court considered the situation in the context of whether or not the delay was attributable to the defendants under rule 3.191(j)(2), whereas the Williams court considered the situation in the context of whether or not the defendant was "unavailable" under rule 3.191(j)(3). We conclude that neither exception to the rule applies here.
This Court has consistently held that the 175-day speedy trial period begins upon a defendant's initial arrest. See Weed v. State, 411 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla.1982) ("[T]he date of the original arrest is the focal point for speedy trial considerations, irrespective of changes made in charges. Only in specifically delineated circumstances can the time periods be adjusted."); see also State v. Naveira, 873 So.2d 300, 305 (Fla.2004) (citing Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183, 1184 (Fla.1994)) ("The speedy trial period begins when a defendant is first taken into custody, not when charges are first filed.").
In Weed, in an opinion by Justice Adkins, this Court summarized some of the case law in which the courts had concluded that the State's unilateral actions could not delay the running of time for speedy trial:
In [State v.] Thaddies, [364 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ] the court held that when a charge is dropped and another is filed based on the same incident, the date of the arrest is the relevant date for speedy trial purposes. In [State ex rel. Smith v.] Nesbitt, [355 So.2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ] the fact that the charge was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor and then back to a felony did not alter the running of the speedy trial period from the original arrest date. See also Gue v. State, 297 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In [State ex rel. Williams v.] Cowart, [281 So.2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ] there was a mistrial, after which charges were amended. After the expiration of the 90 days under Rule 3.191(g), the state attempted to nolle prosequi one charge. The court held the speedy trial time limit had run since the trial had not commenced within the 90 days. The court went on to add that the fact that the state entered a nolle prosequi did not operate to deprive the accused of his right to a speedy trial given the language in Rule 3.191(h)(2) which provides that the time cannot be extended by the filing of new charges based on the same criminal episode.
These cases stand for a basic proposition that is central to this case, that is, the date of the original arrest is the focal point for speedy trial considerations, irrespective of changes made in charges. Only in specifically delineated, circumstances can the time periods be adjusted.
411 So.2d at 864-65 (emphasis supplied). Thus, in the case at bar, it is apparent that under Florida law the speedy trial period started running when petitioners were first arrested. The question then becomes whether the petitioners were at fault or acted in some way to prevent the State from bringing the case to trial within the speedy trial time. We find no such action here.
We hold that the outcome in Williams comports with both the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial and Florida's speedy trial rule. Under the speedy trial rule, the defendant, upon being arrested, has no obligation under the rule to further assert his right to be brought to trial unless he first waives his right. The Williams decision correctly points out that it is the State's responsibility to bring those arrested to trial within the times provided in the speedy trial rule. Further, as noted above in Weed, this Court has consistently disapproved of any action by the State unilaterally tolling the running of the speedy trial period. See, e.g., Genden, 648 So.2d at 1185 (holding that the State's announcement of "no action" does not toll speedy trial); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla.1993) (holding that the State's announcement of a nolle prosequi in a case does not toll speedy trial). We also agree with the observation by the court in Williams that the exceptions to enforcement of the speedy trial times usually contemplate some affirmative action by the defendant rendering him unavailable for trial or responsible for delaying a trial. No such action has been cited here.
In Bulgin and Williams, it is undisputed that the State was essentially in complete control of the chain of events (e.g., arrest, offer and terms of the cooperation agreement, rearrest, and timetable on filing formal charges). Thus, it appears any delay or unavailability in prosecution and trial was attributed to the State in the first instance by deciding to place these cases on a different prosecutorial track, and in seeking the benefit of the cooperation of the defendants to make other cases. As the Fifth District noted, it is not unreasonable to expect that if the State makes this decision after an arrest, it cannot ignore the speedy trial rule; and it has the responsibility to take the rule into account, including the obvious option of including a waiver of speedy trial in the cooperation agreement, something the court noted the State was aware of and obviously knew how to do since it was undisputed that it had done so in other cooperation agreements. See Williams, 757 So.2d at 600. However, as noted above, in neither Bul-gin nor Williams was the speedy trial issue discussed or waivers sought. Rather, the State relies on the silence of the defendants and a silent record. Yet, the State can cite no instance in which a court has held that mere silence constitutes a waiver of the right to a speedy trial.
We simply conclude that if defendants are to waive their speedy trial rights there must be some more explicit action or evidence of intent to do so than the mere agreement to cooperate with the police in other criminal investigations or prosecutions. As noted above, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to bring the case to trial within 175 days of arrest, and, absent speedy trial waivers or other grounds to establish a speedy trial exception, the State has the responsibility to proceed with a timely prosecution of the defendants. It is undisputed that they did not do so in the cases before us today.
We realize that there may be situations in which this holding will not apply (e.g., when other arguments are made involving different circumstances, that defendants were "unavailable" or that they affirmatively frustrated the State's ability to go to trial). See Barker, 407 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. 2182 ("[A]ny inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case.... "). However, here the State makes no claim that the prosecutions or trials were otherwise delayed because of some action of the defendants beyond their cooperation with the police. And, of course, as has been noted above, we are not faced with a situation where the speedy trial rule was specifically discussed and waivers secured.
We conclude that the First District improperly attributed the speedy trial delays to the defendants when it pointed solely to the existence of the cooperation agreements to establish the defendants' responsibility for the delay. Accordingly, we quash the First District's decision in Bul-gin and approve the Fifth District's decision in Williams.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
QUINCE, J., concurs with an opinion, in which CANTERO, J., concurs.
BELL, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion.
. The other two cases considered with Bulgin by the First District were State v. Patel, and State v. Pelky, case numbers 1D02-5003 and 1D02-5004, respectively.
. Each case should be reviewed on its own to determine to whom the failure to hold trial should be attributed. For example, there may be circumstances where the defendant specifically asks not to be tried until his cooperation is complete, in which case the failure to hold trial would be "attributable to the accused."