Case Name: STATE OF FLORIDA v. NEFF
Court: Florida Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-10-14
Citations: 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 147
Docket Number: Case No. 84-320 AC
Parties: STATE OF FLORIDA v NEFF
Judges: Before SALMON, KAYE, GREENBAUM, JJ.
Reporter: Florida Supplement Second
Volume: 20
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
STATE OF FLORIDA v NEFF
Case No. 84-320 AC
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County
October 14, 1986
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Jim Smith, Attorney General, and G. Bart Bilibrough, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Gary S. Milner for appellee.
Before SALMON, KAYE, GREENBAUM, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.
After the speedy trial period to bring the defendant to trial had been extended several times because of exceptional circumstances (the absence of the technician), the State announced, even though the witness was still unavailable, that it was ready to proceed to trial without the witness. The announcement was made within the speedy trial period pursuant to the previous orders. Nonetheless, the trial judge granted a motion for discharge in violation of Rule 3.191, Fla. R. Crim. P. The motion was untimely because the speedy trial period had not expired, see State v. Sagre, 435 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and, in any event, the State was privileged to proceed without the witness.
Reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed to trial.
KAYE and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.