WILLIAM MARROW, 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.
Marrow petitioned for prohibition to bar his prosecution in circuit court for drug possession charges. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding that speedy trial rights had been violated because the state failed to properly notify Marrow of the circuit court proceedings and he was under no obligation to appear.
The court granted the petition for prohibition on both the misdemeanor and felony counts. The misdemeanor charge cannot be reprosecuted because it was identical to a charge previously dismissed on speedy trial grounds. The felony charges are barred because the state failed to provide Marrow with proper notice and failed to show he was unavailable for trial, thus violating his speedy trial rights.
[1] A prior dismissal of a charge on speedy trial grounds precludes subsequent prosecution for that same charge.
[2] A defendant is entitled to prohibition barring prosecution on speedy trial grounds when the State fails to demonstrate the defendant's availability for trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Petitioner was not in custody or on bond or personal recognizance before the circuit court which mailed its notice of arraignment and bond status determination to him and former counsel in the Broward County Court. No capias issued or was served incident to these charges, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(j).”
Establishes the factual basis for the speedy trial violation—lack of proper notice and process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarrow was charged in Broward Circuit Court with possession of oxycodone, possession of cocaine, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. A m…
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 Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
William Marrow petitioned this court for prohibition barring his prosecution in the Broward Circuit Court for possession of oxycodone, possession of cocaine and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.
The State has effectively conceded in its response filed in this court that petitioner is entitled to discharge and dismissal of the misdemeanor charge because that was the identical charge dismissed earlier by the Broward County Court on the grounds that speedy trial time had expired there. We agree that this precludes prosecution on this count. State v. Woodruff, 676 So.2d 975 (Fla.1996).
Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to prohibition barring his prosecution on the felony counts as well, on speedy trial grounds. We find State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So.2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) controlling. Petitioner was not in custody or on bond or personal recognizance before the circuit court which mailed its notice of arraignment and bond status determination to him and former counsel in the Broward County Court. No capias issued or was served incident to these charges, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(j). Telephone calls to former counsel did not provide notice to petitioner either. That counsel was not representing him in the circuit court prosecution. Petitioner was under no obligation to appear in circuit court, and the State failed to show that he was not available for a speedy trial in the circuit court prosecution. Cf. Wells v. State, 881 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Datema v. Barad, 372 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
We grant the petition but withhold issuance of the actual writ on the presumption that the circuit court will comply with this Court’s mandate and discharge petitioner from the prosecution.
GROSS, C.J., FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. State, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- State v. Woodruff, 676 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1996)
- Wells v. State, 881 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Datema v. The Honorable Frederick N. Barad, 372 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)