Case Name: Joseph Brooks WINFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-12-03
Citations: 503 So. 2d 333
Docket Number: No. 85-2124
Parties: Joseph Brooks WINFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 503
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Joseph Brooks WINFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-2124.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 3, 1986.
On Motion for Rehearing Jan. 28, 1987.
Second Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1987.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant raises three issues in this appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm in public. Only one point requires discussion. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for discharge based on speedy trial grounds. We agree.
From the record before us, it appears that appellant was arrested October 24, 1984. Thus, the speedy trial rule as it existed prior to the 1985 amendment applies. State v. Green, 473 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In defense of its failure to try appellant within 180 days of his arrest, the state argued that he had not been continuously available for trial, as defined by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(e).
The basis for this contention was that appellant failed to appear for an arraignment scheduled for January 25, 1986. However, prior to the filing of the information, the court, at an adversary preliminary hearing, found no probable cause and released appellant from custody. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.133(b). When the information was thereafter filed, notice was sent to appellant's last known address. Appellant was no longer at that address and failed to appear at arraignment.
We believe this case is controlled by Clinton v. State, 451 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So.2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). At the time the county court released appellant there was no information pending. Therefore, appellant had no obligation to notify the court of his change of address or otherwise keep in touch with the court. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.133(b)(5). Hence, he was not "unavailable," in spite of his failure to appear. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with directions to discharge appellant.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.