ADOLPH LOTT, PETITIONER,
v.
LONNIE LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 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.
Petitioner's habeas corpus petition for release based on the state's failure to timely file an information is denied as moot because the state filed the information before the court could grant relief, though the court found the state failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay.
Although the state failed to demonstrate good cause for delaying the filing of an information beyond thirty days, habeas corpus relief is moot where the information is filed before the court can grant the requested release.
[1] To obtain additional time for filing an information beyond the thirty-day requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b)(6), the state must affirmatively demo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLott was arrested and the state failed to file an information within thirty days; the state sought an additional ten-day extension claiming it needed …
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 Release On Own Recognizance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Lott petitions for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the state’s failure to file an information within thirty days after his arrest entitles him to release on his own recognizance pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b)(6). In its response, the state asserts it is entitled to an additional ten-day period to locate the alleged victim and obtain her sworn statement, as the predicate for filing an information. Although it has not been able to find the complainant in over thirty days, the state maintains it will produce her within ten days.
We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the state presented good cause for failing to file the information. To obtain extra time for filing the information, the state must show good cause for the delay; if it fails to do so, defendant must be released. The state did not meet its burden. The record demonstrates that during the two-week period after it learned of the unserved subpoena, the state made no attempt to locate the alleged victim. We therefore conclude that the state failed to demonstrate good cause why the information was not filed. Defendant would be entitled to release upon his own recognizance, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.133(b)(6); however, the state’s filing of an information on the fortieth day renders the matter moot. We agree with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bowens v. Tyson, 543 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), that under the present circumstances defendant is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bowens v. The Honorable Robert W. Tyson, Jr., 543 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)