JOSEPH ANTHONY CORRAO, 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.
Petitioner's writ of prohibition is granted because the trial court failed to provide notice of trial to defendant or counsel, causing the speedy trial window to expire through no fault of defendant.
A defendant must be discharged from prosecution when the trial court fails to provide notice of the trial date to the defendant or defense counsel, causing the speedy trial window to expire.
[1] A defendant is entitled to discharge from prosecution when the trial court schedules trial but fails to provide notice to the defendant or defense counsel, causing the sp…
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 intelligence“Because of the lack of any evidence showing that Corrao or his counsel was given notice of trial, we are compelled to grant the petition for writ of prohibition, and Corrao is forever discharged from prosecution for the crimes charged in this case.”
Court's conclusion granting the writ of prohibition and ordering discharge
Corrao was arraigned on January 7, 1997, and agreed to be on standby with two-hour notice for trial that week. Trial was scheduled for January 9, 1997…
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 Notice Of Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Joseph Anthony Corrao, seeks a writ of prohibition, claiming that he was not brought to trial within the window period of the speedy trial rule through no fault of his own. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3). At Corrao’s arraignment on Tuesday, January 7, 1997, the court agreed that Corrao would be on standby and receive two hour notice for trial later that week.
The record indicates that Corrao’s trial was scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 1997, but neither Corrao nor defense counsel was present when the case was called.
The trial court apparently made no effort to communicate with counsel concerning the reason for their absence.
The trial court then issued a warrant for Corrao’s arrest.
On January 14, 1997, after the expiration of the window period, defense counsel filed a motion to recall capias, and on January 21 he filed a motion for discharge, and an affidavit, where he stated under oath that he was never advised by the trial judge or his office staff, by anyone from the clerk’s office, or by anyone from the state attorney’s office, that the trial date was specifically set for January 9, 1997.
At the hearing on the motion for discharge, no evidence was presented to rebut defense counsel’s sworn statement.
The trial court nevertheless denied the motion for discharge. Because of the lack of any evidence showing that Corrao or his counsel was given notice of trial, we are compelled to grant the petition for writ of prohibition, and Corrao is forever discharged from prosecution for the crimes charged in this case.
PETITION GRANTED. GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. GOSHORN, J., dissents, without opinion.