STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., DIEGO GUZMAN AND MIGUEL GORDILLO, PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE L. R. HUFFSTETLER, JR., AND ALL OTHER JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that prohibition is not the proper remedy to challenge a trial court's order granting an extension of speedy trial time, even if the extension was erroneous, as long as the order was entered before the speedy trial time expired.
Petitioners were charged with trafficking in cannabis and sought a writ of prohibition to prevent their trial, arguing the speedy trial period had exp…
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 Exceptional Circumstances For Speedy Trial Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from trying them on charges of trafficking in cannabis. Petitioners were taken into custody on May 25, 1981, and the speedy trial period would have run on November 21, 1981. On November 19, 1981, the trial court entered a written order granting the State’s motion to toll the speedy trial time. The trial court specifically found that the case was so unusual and complex as to meet the criteria of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(f), permitting an extension of time on motion by the State under “exceptional circumstances.”
Petitioners contend that the facts upon which the State relied in order to show “exceptional circumstances” do not justify such finding, and that their motion for discharge should have been granted.
Prohibition may be properly granted when a lower tribunal is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. Its purpose is to prevent the doing of something, not to undo something already done. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977).
Where, as in this case, the trial court grants an extension of time for trial because it finds “unusual circumstances” and the extension order is entered before speedy trial time has run, jurisdiction of the trial court continues, Klein v. Smith, 366 So. 2d 1206 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), even if the appellate court believes the extension order to have been in error.1 State ex rel. Mullins v. Swigert, 345 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
We therefore deny the writ of prohibition without prejudice to the right of petitioner to question the correctness of the extension order and the denial of the motion for discharge on appeal from a final judgment.
Prohibition DENIED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur. . We express no view as to the propriety of the extension order entered here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. Honorable Michael McDERMOTT, 466 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…on 1 which sought to prohibit the county court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over him because of a claimed violation of the speedy trial rule.2 The circuit court did not reach the merits of this question, relying on Guzman v. Huffstetler, 409 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). That case is no longer controlling.3 We reverse and remand to give the circuit court an opportunity to rule on the matter. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(c)(3).…
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- State ex rel. Mary Louise Mullins v. The Honorable William T. Swigert, 345 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Honorable Gerald Klein v. Al Smith, 366 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)