MICHAEL WILLIAM JERRELL, 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.
Florida appellate court granted writ of prohibition requiring discharge of defendant where trial court erroneously struck speedy trial demand filed before custody, violating speedy trial rights.
A speedy trial demand filed before a defendant is taken into custody is valid and cannot be struck by the trial court.
[1] A speedy trial demand filed before a defendant is taken into custody is valid and cannot be struck by the trial court as premature.
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 intelligenceAn information charging Jerrell with fraud was filed February 12, 2002. Defense counsel filed a speedy trial demand on February 15, and Jerrell was ta…
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 "In Custody" Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael William Jerrell petitions for a writ of prohibition, contending that he is entitled to release on speedy trial grounds. The facts are undisputed and the petition presents a question of law. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. McKinney v. Yawn, 625 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The State of Florida concedes that petitioner is entitled to relief and we find that concession to be well-taken. Accordingly, we grant the petition.
An information was filed against Jerrell on February 12, 2002, charging him with fraud involving a security interest. A demand for speedy trial was filed by defense counsel on the morning of February 15 and Jerrell was taken into custody later that day. When the defense filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial in April, the prosecution moved to strike the demand for speedy trial, arguing that it was premature because it was filed before Jerrell was taken into custody. The trial court accepted this argument and struck the demand for speedy trial. This was error in light of Brown v. State, 798 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) and Carter v. State, 509 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct that the trial court enter an order discharging Jerrell from the charges pending against him.
PETITION GRANTED.
WOLF, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McKINNEY v. Honorable Theron A. Yawn, Jr., 625 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Carter v. State, 509 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Brown v. State, 798 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)