RALPH ERIC EHN, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE C. MCFERRIN SMITH, III, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indigency cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is before us on a Petition for Writ of Prohibition to prevent a trial. The allegations involve the speedy trial rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On October 22, 1982, petitioner delivered to this court his Petition for Writ of Prohibition. The petitioner is required either to pay a filing fee or to prove his indigency in order for this court to consider his petition. He failed to do this and an order explaining the applicable rules and statute was sent to petitioner on the same date.
On November 1,1982, the petitioner complied with the statute and submitted an order showing his indigency.
From the allegations of the petition it appears the question before this court is now moot and was moot at the time the petition was first properly before this court. Therefore, we must deny the petition. Of course, if the matter is not moot then it can be raised again.
WRIT DENIED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. Honorable Michael McDERMOTT, 466 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…onger 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). . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. .Ehn v. Smith, 426 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) now holds that prohibition is a proper remedy for an alleged speedy trial violation. See also Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1983); Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1983).…
-
Hill v. State, 467 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1985)…ALDERMAN, Justice. We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Hill v. State, 438 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), which expressly and directly conflicts with Ehn v. Smith, 426 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Petitioner and five other inmates were charged with escape from Polk Correctional Institution, assault by a prisoner, and criminal mischief. The 180-day speedy trial period began to run on June 10,1982, when petitioner was reca…
-
Ferris v. State, 475 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1985)…mstances as hereafter defined in section (f).... The Fifth District Court of Appeal has construed this rule to mean that any extension granted must be for a specific period of time. Neuman v. State, 431 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Ehn v. Smith, 426 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The First District Court of Appeal has held “that a Rule 3.191(f) extension or continuance, granted either the state or the defendant because of ‘exceptional circumstances’ preventing a scheduled trial within the speedy trial pe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence