ROBERT C. YON, PETITIONER,

v.

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Clark v. State, 873 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
  …eeably or unavoidably absent or that his presence was ‘uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial,’ so that none of the prerequisites of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(f)(1) were satisfied.” This is clearly the State’s burden. See also Sullivan v. State, 728 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In its response to this petition, the State takes the position that, even if a witness is not “uniquely necessary,” the court may nevertheless find exceptional circumstances under subsections 3 or 4 of rule 3.191(Z). The rule pr…
• Marlin Leon Wiggins v. State, 981 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
  …spectfully dissent. In his petition, Mr. Wiggins challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for discharge based on the expiration of the speedy trial period. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3). Prohibition is the proper remedy. See Sullivan, 728 So. 2d 290; Clark, 873 So. 2d 598; Hajal v. State, 864 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The State did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(0 to justify an extension of the speedy trial period. Recognizing tha…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Hendrix v. Singletary, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
• Finch v. State, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)