Case Name: Michael J. MULLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-12-17
Citations: 307 So. 2d 829
Docket Number: No. 74-302
Parties: Michael J. MULLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 307
Pages: 829–830

Head Matter:
Michael J. MULLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 74-302.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 17, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1975.
See also, Fla.App., 286 So.2d 36.
Moran & Gold, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged by information, tried by jury, convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of second degree murder and sentenced to one thirty-year term and two life terms in the state penitentiary, to run consecutively.
The crucial issue on appeal is whether the state failed to accord the defendant a speedy trial, thereby entitling him to discharge as a matter of right. The record discloses that the defendant moved the court to suppress his confession, which motion was granted. The state appealed the suppression, and the defendant was not brought to trial for some 223 days subsequent to the court's granting of his motion to suppress. The state never moved the court for an order extending or tolling the speedy trial period.
Our interpretation of Rule 3.-191(d)(2), CrPR, as applied in State v. Williams, Fla.App.1973, 287 So.2d 415, is that a court order is required to extend or toll the speedy trial period under those circumstances set out in the rule. " . the extensions are to be actually granted or denied by the court and should not be presumed. It is the order and not the circumstances which should toll the rule." Esperti v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 276 So.2d 58, 64.
The state having failed to request an order of extension pending the outcome of the interlocutory appeal, as specifically provided in .Rule 3.191(d) (2) (iv), CrPR, the speedy trial period elapsed, and the convictions and sentences are hereby reversed and the defendant is discharged.
Reversed.