ROBERT LEE KEMP, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for relief, holding that his speedy trial rights were not violated. The court found that the defendant failed to properly demand a trial as required by statute and that the delay between the information and trial did not render his conviction subject to collateral attack.
No, the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated because he failed to comply with statutory requirements for demanding a trial. Furthermore, the record did not show that his counsel moved for a continuance, refuting the claim of insufficient preparation time.
“We hold that the trial court correctly determined that these allegations did not constitute a basis for relief under the rule because the record conclusively shows that the appellant failed to take advantage of § 915.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. by requesting trial.”
Establishes the primary reason for affirming the lower court's denial of relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was informed against in 1949 and tried in 1959, with periods of incarceration for other convictions in between. He claimed a denial of h…
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 Collateral Attack On Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal from a summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix the defendant alleges that he was informed against in 1949 and tried in 1959. During the interim he had been incarcerated upon other convictions. It is his position now that by the delay he was denied a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that these allegations did not constitute a basis for relief under the rule because the record conclusively shows that the appellant failed to take advantage of § 915.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 by requesting trial. Under the law in this State as enunciated in Loy v. Grayson, Fla.1957, 99 So. 2d 555, and Marti v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 506, the lapse of time between the filing of an information and the trial on the charges included therein does not render his subsequent conviction subject to collateral attack.
*59Appellant also urges that the court erred in refusing his individually employed counsel time to prepare for trial. This ground is refuted by the record which fails to show a motion for continuance by the individually employed counsel.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. State, 181 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…onsent or acquiescence. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. . Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 898. . Kemp v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 58; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. . Gillyard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 798; Brookins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 578. . Mulvey v. State, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 156; Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 So. 160 (1920). . Grah…
-
Wilson v. State, 194 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…equest for a trial before this statute takes effect. Silence on the part of the accused will not activate this statute. Loy v. Grayson, Fla.1957, 99 So. 2d 555; Kelly v. State ex rel. Morgan, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 431; and Kemp v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 58. Defendant here filed no request for trial, so he cannot seek relief under Fla.Stat., Sec. 915.01, F.S.A. The defendant was placed on probation for five (5) years. He admitted he was in Texas when he was placed in custody for violating his probatio…
-
Garcia v. State, 196 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…f the judgment. The defendant was represented by counsel, and there is no showing that the period of his incarceration before trial operated to prejudice his defense of the cause. Loy v. Grayson, Fla.1957, 99 So. 2d 555; Kemp v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 58. The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of stolen property, obtained by police at the time of and following the arrest. When the defendant was stopped by police and placed under arrest for observed traffic vi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Alton LOY v. Grayson, 99 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1957)