Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy THOMAS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-09-06
Citations: 659 So. 2d 1322
Docket Number: No. 95-405
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy THOMAS, Appellee.
Judges: Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 659
Pages: 1322–1324

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy THOMAS, Appellee.
No. 95-405.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 6, 1995.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Joni Braunstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
. The Rivas opinion intimates that this result is required by Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1978). Stuart was decided before the window period was added to Rule 3.191. The "no fault of the defendant” phrase was added when the window period was created. The Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules■ — Criminal Procedure, 462 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla.1984). The purpose of the window period was to change prior law by ameliorating the draconian remedy of automatic dismissal in felony cases including, I would suggest, the "gotcha” tactics permitted by earlier speedy trial decisions. It is unsound to import pre-window period precedent into the window-period rule.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order granting defendant's motion for discharge for violation of the speedy trial rule. Defendant was not brought to trial within the time required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p). "A defendant not brought to trial within the ten-day period through no fault of the defendant, on motion of the defendant or the court, shall be forever discharged from the crime." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(p)(3). See State v. Koch, 605 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Affirmed.
BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.