DAVID BURGESS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2005-11-16
No. 2D05-4133
ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
913 So. 2d 1253 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

David Burgess appeals the dismissal of his motion for “speedy resolution of a detainer.” Mr. Burgess is currently in prison for an offense committed in Pinellas County. A detainer has been placed on him because of a pending affidavit of violation of probation in this Hillsborough County case. We affirm the dismissal order because there is no mechanism by which Mr. Burgess can force the circuit court in Hillsborough County to dispose of the violation of probation while he is in prison on other charges. See Saunders v. State, 837 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA. 2002). We note, however, that the record suggests that Mr. Burgess’s term of probation in the case may have expired before the arrest warrant for the violation was issued. See Sepulveda v. State, 909 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Baroulette v. McCray, 904 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • McINTOSH v. State, 959 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
    …433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (denying prohibition [*1247] and noting that no mechanism exists where a defendant can force a court to timely dispose of a VOP, and the failure to do so does not deprive the court of jurisdiction); see also Burgess v. State, 913 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the motion to compel speedy disposition of VOP detain-er). STEVENSON, C.J., SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.…
  • Susick v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
    …eral custody decisions. See Saunders v. State, 837 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). There is no mechanism by which Susick can force the circuit court to dispose of the violation of probation while he is in prison on other charges. Burgess v. State, 913 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). For these reasons we AFFIRM.2 BILBREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. 2 Susick’s motion to reconstrue his petition is denied. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw