DAVID E. BALLARD, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE FRANK N. KANEY, CIRCUIT JUDGE, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Prohibition is a proper remedy to bar further prosecution when discharge has been erroneously denied after a violation of speedy trial rule rights.
Petitioner was not tried within 180 days of arrest. He participated in plea bargaining and entered a conditional plea of guilty on the 184th day, whic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.191(A)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent trial judge from presiding over any further criminal prosecution of him because he was not tried within 180 days of his arrest as directed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(1).
During the 180 days after petitioner’s arrest he participated in plea bargaining and on the 184th day entered a negotiated conditional plea of guilty which was later rejected by the court pursuant to a condition of the plea agreement. On the 422nd day after his arrest petitioner moved for a continuance. Mere participation in plea bargaining does not waive speedy trial rights. Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1978), State v. Bragg, 367 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). See also Mellman v. Rudd, 389 So. 2d 706 (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), cited by respondent, are distinguishable because in those cases the plea was entered before the speedy trial rule period had expired.
This court has held that prohibition is a proper remedy to bar further prosecution when a discharge has been erroneously denied after a violation of speedy trial rule rights. Bates v. Keating, 396 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly the petitioner is discharged and the writ of prohibition is
GRANTED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nelson, 26 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 2010)…why trial was not commenced within 180 days.” Id. Because the court no longer possessed jurisdiction over the defendant, the Fourth District concluded that the post-expiration motion for continuance had no effect. See id.; see also Ballard v. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“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, 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (applying…
-
Bertrand Obanion v. State, 496 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…d that defense participation in plea discussions does not, without more, constitute unavailability for trial under the speedy trial rule. Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d at 410; Fulk v. State, 417 So. 2d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 6th DCA 1982); Ballard v. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Bragg, 367 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The state also argues that the defendant Obanion was unavailable for trial during the ninety-day speedy trial period [September 18 — December 17, 1984] because (a…
-
Holmes v. The Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…custody and, upon the state’s failure to do so, he was entitled to be discharged. Prohibition is a proper remedy to bar further prosecution when a discharge has been erroneously denied after a violation of speedy trial rule rights. Ballard v. Kaney, 397 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Petitioner’s writ of prohibition is granted and the petitioner is ordered discharged. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur. . (b)(1) Prisoners Outside Jurisdiction. A person who is in federal custody or incarcerated…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Alphonso Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1978)
- State ex rel. William M. C. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Muller v. State, 387 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Bates v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 396 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hammock v. State, 330 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- White v. State, 338 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Gerstein v. Hepworth, 376 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- White v. Roundtree Transp., Inc., 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Mellman v. Honorable John A. Rudd, 389 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Davis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)