SC02-2583 State of Florida v. Jason Ray Robbins

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Supreme Court » 2003 » SC02-2583 State of Florida v. Jason Ray Robbins

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: sc02-2583

Case Date: 09/18/2003

Plaintiff: SC02-2583 State of Florida

Defendant: Jason Ray Robbins

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC02-2583
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs.
JASON RAY ROBBINS,
Respondent.
[September 18, 2003]
PER CURIAM.
We originally accepted review of State v. Robbins, 830 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2002), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Upon closer examination, however, we find that jurisdiction was improvidently
granted in this case.   Therefore, we dismiss review of this cause.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL,
JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion.

NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
WELLS, J., dissenting.
I do not agree with discharging jurisdiction.   This Court has jurisdiction
because the Fifth District certified the following question as one of great public
importance:
WHEN AN INFORMATION CHARGING A DEFENDANT WITH
BOTH MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY CHARGES IS FILED
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL PERIOD
FOR MISDEMEANORS, MUST THE MISDEMEANOR COUNTS
BE DISMISSED?
By refusing to answer this question, the majority leaves in effect Alvarez v. State,
791 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Livingston v. State, 564 So. 2d 612 (Fla.
1st DCA 1990).
Alvarez and Livingston answer the certified question in the affirmative.   This
answer conflicts with the plain language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.191(f), which states:
Consolidation of Felony and Misdemeanor.
When a felony and a misdemeanor are consolidated for
disposition in circuit court, the misdemeanor shall be governed by the
same time period applicable to the felony.
If the plain language of the rule is applied, the answer to the certified question is in
the negative.
-2-

It is important that the speedy trial rule be strictly construed because the
application of the rule by this Court conflicts with the Florida Constitution’s
mandate for separation of powers.   As pointed out by Justice Overton in his
dissent in Reed v. State, 649 So. 2d 227, 229 (Fla. 1995), this Court’s application
of the speedy trial rule has made the rule substantive law, rather than procedural,
because a speedy trial rule dismissal is with prejudice to the refiling of the charges.
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(n).   This effectively alters the statute of limitations lawfully
enacted by the Legislature.   See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1994)
(Wells, J., dissenting).   Thus, an expansion of the reach of the speedy trial rule in
respect to misdemeanors consolidated with felonies by not applying rule 3.191(f) as
written is further in conflict with section 775.15(2)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, and
article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.
Therefore, I believe we should accept this important question.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified
Great Public Importance
Fifth District - Case No. 5D02-261
(Seminole County)
-3-

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Marvin F. Clegg and Christopher S.
Quarles, Assistant Public Defenders, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach,
Florida,
for Respondent
-4-

Download sc02-2583.pdf