FRANKLIN D. HINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE 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.
The court reversed the denial of a motion to discharge based on the State's failure to bring the defendant to trial within 90 days of arrest, where the State itself stipulated that no valid waiver of speedy trial rights occurred and the delay was chargeable to the State.
When the State stipulates that no valid waiver of speedy trial occurred and the delay is chargeable to the State, the defendant must be discharged under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191.
[1] When the State stipulates that no valid waiver of speedy trial rights occurred and the delay is chargeable to the State, the defendant is entitled to discharge under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The State of Florida hereby stipulates in the above styled cause that under the facts in the record defendant Hinson nor his attorney Salmon ever made a valid knowing or intelligent waiver of speedy trial and that speedy trial has run in the case in that defendant's motion for continuance to complete discovery was chargeable to the state due to failure to timely disclose an essential witness to defendant's counsel.”
The State's written stipulation filed in county court acknowledging the violation of speedy trial rights.
Hinson was arrested for driving while intoxicated and filed a motion for discharge because the State failed to bring him to trial within 90 days of ar…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191 cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Petitioner Hinson has filed a petition for common law certiorari seeking review of the circuit court’s affirmance without opinion of the county court’s denial of his motion seeking discharge because the State failed to bring him to trial within 90 days of his arrest, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to driving while intoxicated, specifically re serving his right to appeal the denial of the motion for discharge. We reverse.
The record shows that prior to the filing of petitioner’s motion for discharge, the State filed in the county court a written stipulation, stating as follows:
The State of Florida hereby stipulates in the above styled cause that under the facts in the record defendant Hinson nor his attorney Salmon ever made a valid knowing or intelligent waiver of speedy trial and that speedy trial has run in the case in that defendant’s motion for continuance to complete discovery was chargeable to the state due to failure to timely disclose an essential witness to defendant’s counsel. (Emphasis supplied.)
The stipulation was signed by Daniel W. Clark, Assistant State Attorney. In view of the stipulation, the circuit court’s affirmance of the trial court’s denial of the motion for discharge was error. Petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the cause is reversed and remanded with directions that the petitioner be discharged.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.