HAROLD HAMMOCK, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Robbins v. State, 453 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
  …ember 24, 1984, had expired when defendant’s motion was filed. The only question is whether the 180-day requirement was inapplicable because defendant had been unavailable for trial under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(e). The state, citing Singleton v. Gross, 436 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), contends that defendant was unavailable in Hillsbor-ough County because he was incarcerated in Pinellas County. The state, citing Rule 3.191(e)(1), also contends that defendant failed to attend proceedings where his presence was…
• State v. Natal Rasul, 468 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …the lack of knowledge of that fact by the court, prosecutor, or sheriff of Polk County. Therefore, his imprisonment in another county did not render him “available” for trial. Garnett v. State, 457 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Singleton v. Gross, 436 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). No basis exists for imputing constructive knowledge of the appellee’s whereabouts to the Polk County sheriff or to any officer of the Polk County court. The appellee’s jailed status in Lee County distinguishes this case from thos…
• Walker v. State, 492 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
  …e state was not put on notice of defendant’s [*775] whereabouts when the assistant state attorney heard from an HRS counselor that defendant might have been arrested in Marion County. “The primary case relied upon by the state is Singleton v. Gross, 436 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), in which it was stated that where the state has “actual notice” of the fact that the defendant has been incarcerated in another county, then the defendant must be brought to trial within 180 days. The state contends that in the p…

Authorities Cited

• Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)