EMANUEL GERSTEIN, PETITIONER,

v.

GEORGE W. HEPWORTH, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Nelson, 26 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 2010)
  …es of Crim. Pro., 245 So. 2d 33, 36 (Fla.1971). In addition, some courts held that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the defendant at the expiration of the speedy trial period under the provisions of the earlier rule. See Llanusa v. Glickstein, 376 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In 1984, the rule was amended to repeal the remedy of automatic discharge and to create the recapture period, as demonstrated by the committee notes to the amendment. [*576] Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191 committee notes (1984) (emp…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …nt’s unreadiness for trial and thereby authorized the denial of discharge. The motion for continuance, however, was made five days after the speedy trial time had run. Such a motion does not affect Muller’s right to discharge. Llanusa v. Glickstein, 376 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Cf. White v. State, 338 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (defendant’s discovery demands made after speedy trial period has run do not constitute a waiver); Hammock v. State, 330 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (a demonstration of u…
• Ballard v. Honorable Frank N. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
  …(Fla. 1st DCA 1980). When the speedy trial rule period has run the right of the accused to discharge is not affected by acts which might have earlier constituted a waiver.- Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Llanusa v. Glickstein, 376 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); White v. State, 338 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hammock v. State, 330 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Davis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978…