MARY M. MARTIN, 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 held that a demand for speedy trial is facially valid even without discovery if it includes an offer to plead guilty, which negates the need for discovery until the offer is rejected.
Petitioner demanded a speedy trial, which included an offer to enter a guilty plea. The state argued the demand was invalid because petitioner had not…
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 Speedy Trial Demand cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the discharge of certain detain-ers filed against her, because more than 180 days elapsed from the date of filing her demand for speedy trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, as authorized by section 941.45(3)(a) Fla.Stat. We grant the writ.
In response to the order to show cause, the state acknowledged that petitioner would be entitled to discharge if her demand for speedy trial was valid. Because petitioner did not have counsel and had not demanded discovery, state contends that the demand was facially invalid and therefore null and void. See Dickey v. McNeal, 445 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Dickey holds that where it can be determined that a defendant is not in fact ready and prepared for trial when a demand for speedy trial is made, the demand is null and void, and a subsequent motion for discharge is properly denied. Dickey does not hold, as the state suggests, that a demand for speedy trial is per se invalid if the defendant has not engaged in discovery,
Here, the demand for speedy trial included an offer to enter a guilty plea. Thus, petitioner had no reason to engage in discovery at least until that offer was rejected. The offer was not rejected, rather, it was ignored. Under these circumstances, it appears from the face of the demand that petitioner was in fact ready for “trial”.
Because the state has conceded that petitioner would be entitled to the relief she seeks if her demand for speedy trial was valid, and because we find that under these circumstances the demand was facially valid, the petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to discharge the detainers referred to in the demand for speedy trial is granted. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landry v. State, 666 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1995)…annot serve as an independent basis for striking a demand as invalid, because there is no requirement that a defendant participate in discovery. See Fla.Rule Crim.P. 3.220(a) (defendant may elect to participate in discovery); accord Martin v. State, 503 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (demand for speedy trial is not per se invalid simply because defendant has not engaged in discovery). There is no question that there are legitimate strategic reasons why a defendant might wish to forego discovery in exchange fo…
-
Deriso v. State, 221 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…y, and the mere fact that Deriso “decide[d] to forego discovery in exchange for a speedy trial cannot serve.as an independent basis for striking a demand as invalid .... ” See Landry v. State, 666 So. 2d 121, 127 (Fla. 1995); accord Martin v. State, 503 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (stating that a demand for speedy trial is not per se invalid simply because defendant has not engaged in discovery). The. court must look at the objective evidence in the record to determine whether an accused’s demand for speed…
Authorities Cited
- Winford Dickey v. Honorable Raymond T. McNEAL, 445 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)