Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1981

State v. Forsten

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 4, 1981 · Barkdull, Baskin, Schwartz

401 So. 2d 1160; 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20798 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Blankenship (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The trial court discharged the appellee on the ground, among others, that the state’s 120 day delay in bringing him to trial subsequent to the expiration of an agreed continuance violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.1 This issue “must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case as a matter of judicial discretion.” State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, 253 So.2d 861, 863 (Fla. 1971), quoted and readopted in Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968, 970 (Fla. 1980). No abuse of that discretion has been demonstrated on this record. Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1974) (100 day delay after state continuance found constitutionally unreasonable).

Affirmed.

. Because the defendant had previously himself both moved for and agreed to continuances, the provisions of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 were not controlling. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.