STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD B. CULLIGAN, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appealed the dismissal of a grand theft charge against Ronald Culligan, an inmate in Virginia, arguing that Culligan failed to comply with the Agreement on Detainers statute to trigger his right to speedy trial in Florida.
Culligan failed to meet even the substantial compliance test required under the Agreement on Detainers. His motion was inadequate because it did not provide the information required by Section 941.45(3)(a and b), and therefore the speedy trial clock did not commence.
[1] A defendant incarcerated in another state, facing charges in Florida with a detainer lodged, may request final disposition of their case under the Agreement on Detainers.
[2] Substantial compliance with the requirements of the Agreement on Detainers is sufficient to trigger the speedy trial provisions.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under the interstate compact known as the Agreement on Detainers, Sections 941.45-50, Florida Statutes (1983), a person incarcerated in another state and also charged by information with a Florida crime for which a detainer has been lodged with his custodian, may deliver to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court a written notice of his imprisonment and a request for final disposition of his case in Florida.”
Establishes the formal requirements for invoking speedy trial rights under the interstate compact
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida issued a warrant for Culligan's arrest and lodged a detainer with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. While i…
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 Substantial Compliance With Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State has perfected this appeal from an order dismissing an information charging appellee with grand theft.
The State of Florida issued a warrant for appellee’s arrest and lodged a detainer against appellee with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. Appellee filed a “Motion To Dismiss Charge, or in the Alternative, Motion for Speedy Trial.” The Office of State Attorney filed a “Response to Request for Final Disposition and Request for Temporary Custody.” In due course, the matter was heard by the trial court and the motion to dismiss was granted. We reverse.
Under the interstate compact known as the Agreement on Detainers, Sections 941.-45-50, Florida Statutes (1983), a person incarcerated in another state and also charged by information with a Florida crime for which a detainer has been lodged with his custodian, may deliver to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court a written notice of his imprisonment and a request for final disposition of his case in Florida. The request must be accompanied by a certificate of the official having custody of the person with certain specified information. Upon compliance with the interstate compact, the person’s time for speedy trial commences. Appellee purports to have initiated the running of the speedy trial time by virtue of his above described motion and the State’s response, relying upon State v. Roberts, 427 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), which holds that substantial compliance with the requirements contained in Section 941.45(3) is sufficient to trigger the speedy trial aspect of the compact. While we agree with the principle of substantial 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)…to the Agreement’s operation, then his failure of strict compliance will not deprive him of its benefits.’ ” 427 So. 2d at 790 (emphasis added) (quoting State ex rel. Saxton v. Moore, 598 S.W. 2d 586, 590 (Mo.App.1980)); See also State v. Culligan, 454 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (substantial compliance test not met where motion by prisoner was inadequate to provide the information required by section 941.-45(3)(a)(b)). We also reject Torres-Arbole-do’s claim that the California warden failed to fulfill…
-
State v. FAY, 763 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…n custody. Further, the request did not contain required information, such as the term of commitment, the time already served, the time remaining to be served, the amount of good time earned, or the time of parole eligibility. See State v. Culligan, 454 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(order dismissing information reversed where request for disposition was unaccompanied by information required by the statute). See also Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1988); Coit v. State, 440 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st…
-
Russell v. State, 801 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403, 412, (Fla.1988); State v. Culligan, 454 So. 2d 700, 700 (Fla. 4th [*310] DCA 1984); Coit v. State, 440 So. 2d 409, 411-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). ERVIN, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Roberts, 427 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hurst v. State, 440 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)