Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

State of Florida v. Johnny Tomberlin, 13-4648 (2015)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 13-4648 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D13-4648 JOHNNY TOMBERLIN, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed April 8, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Chuck Collins of the Collins Law Firm, for
More
                                       IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                                       FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                       FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
      Appellant,                       DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

v.                                     CASE NO. 1D13-4648

JOHNNY TOMBERLIN,

      Appellee.


_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County.
Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Chuck Collins of the Collins Law Firm, for Appellee.




PER CURIAM.

      The State appeals an order granting Appellee’s motion for discharge based on

the State’s failure to bring Appellee to trial within 15 days after expiration of the

175-day speedy trial period. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(a), (p). The State argues,
and Appellee concedes, that the trial court erred when, in calculating the speedy trial

period, it included the date of Appellee’s arrest. See State v. Naveira, 
768 So. 2d 1254
, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[T]he date of arrest is excluded in the 175-day

calculation of time, despite that the calculation commences from the date of arrest.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Appellee’s motion for discharge.1

      REVERSED.



MARSTILLER, SWANSON and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.




1
 We reject Appellee’s arguments for affirming the order notwithstanding the trial
court’s error.
                                       2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer