KEVIN ARIZA, PETITIONER,
v.
HON. MICHAEL F. CYCMANICK, CIRCUIT JUDGE, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
We treat Ariza’s petition for writ of mandamus as a petition for writ'of prohibition. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c). Ariza seeks a discharge from prosecution pursuant to the Speedy Trial Rule. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191. The record shows that Ari-za filed a motion for discharge following the expiration of the applicable 175-day speedy trial period. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1). He was not brought to a hearing within five days nor tried within fifteen days following the filing of the motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i)(4). The state filed a motion to strike the motion for discharge twenty-four days after the motion for discharge was filed.
The duty to afford Ariza a hearing and, if necessary, a trial within the “window period” provided by Rule 3.191(i)(4) fell upon the state. Since this duty was not performed, the trial court lost jurisdiction to prosecute Ariza for the offense for which he was arrested on September 2, 1988. See Lenard v. Moxley, 497 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also Lasker v. Parker, 513 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we issue the writ of prohibition and order that Ariza be discharged.
WRIT ISSUED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKINNEY v. Honorable Theron A. Yawn, Jr., 625 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…appearing at subdivisions (i)(4) and (i)(3)) which hold that where the state does not either hold a hearing on a motion for discharge within 5 days or commence the trial within 15 days, the defendant is entitled to discharge. See Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Climpson v. State, 528 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lenard v. Moxley, 497 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state responds to the petition with a “shot gun” argument that can be summarized as follows. The state contends t…
-
Salser v. State, 613 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)…DCA1988). Because [*474] Salser’s pro se motion was valid, the trial court lost jurisdiction of this cause when the hearing on the motion and the scheduling of trial were not completed in a timely manner.6 Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(i); Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA1989). Of course, I recognize that there may be situations in which defendants believe they have detected an omission made by counsel and desire to take actions that could be disruptive. For example, a defendant might develop a desire…
-
Massey v. Hon. Gayle Graziano, 564 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…. Nor is any apparent on the face of the record. Under the current speedy trial rule, the duty rests on the state to afford a defendant a hearing, and, if necessary, a trial within the window period provided by rule 3.191(i)(4). Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Lenard v. Moxley, 497 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state’s failure to perform this duty results in the trial court’s loss of jurisdiction to conduct a trial on the charges. Ari-za. Accordingly, we issue the writ of prohib…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lasker v. The Honorable James S. Parker & the Honorable John R. Blue, 513 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Lenard v. The Honorable John Dean Moxley, Jr., 497 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)