Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John FERRAS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-04-10
Citations: 467 So. 2d 765
Docket Number: No. 84-950
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John FERRAS, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 467
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John FERRAS, Appellee.
No. 84-950.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 10, 1985.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1985.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Carl H. Lida of Law Offices of Carl H. Lida, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand upon the authority of Jenkins v. State, 389 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1980). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(g) calls for a ninety-day extension, beginning on receipt of the mandate, and is equally applicable whether the state or defendant brings the interlocutory appeal and regardless of whether the appeal succeeds or fails. Absent the rule, a ninety-day extension is appropriate in all such eases. See Jenkins, supra, and numerous district court opinions, e.g., State v. McQuay, 423 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court's initial order, granting the ninety-day extension, which it was later persuaded to withdraw, was correct.
HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.