JERRY L. HURST, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Parker v. State, 539 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
  …time. Since the lack of notice was not due to any action or inaction on the part of Florida officials, the state of Florida was not precluded from proceeding against appellant. See Welch v. State, 528 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), Coit v. State, 440 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Williams v. State, 426 So. 2d [*1169] 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Therefore, we find no error on this issqe. Consequently, we also reject appellant’s additional argument that he was forced to waive his right to effective assis…
• State v. Culligan, 454 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
  …compliance contained in Roberts, we hold that appellee failed to meet even the substantial compliance test; his motion was inadequate to provide the information required by Section 941.45(3)(a and b). Thus, this case is controlled by Coit v. State, 440 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and GUNTHER, BOBBY W., Associate Judge, concur.…
• Leshan Welch v. State, 528 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …ly with the notice and filing requirements of the detainer act. Either way, lack of notice was not due to any action or inaction on the part of Florida officials. Therefore, Florida is not precluded from proceeding against petitioner. Coit v. State, 440 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 426 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Since petitioner’s motion for discharge was properly denied, the order is sustained in spite of its flawed reasoning. See Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963…

Authorities Cited

• Mills v. State, 400 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)