ARTIS CLEVELAND MURPH, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, FOR THE COURT OF RECORD, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus from a federal inmate seeking a speedy trial on outstanding detainers. The court discharged the alternative writ after the prosecuting attorney withdrew the detainers, rendering the speedy trial request moot.
No, a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue because the prosecuting attorney has withdrawn the detainers against the petitioner.
“It thus appears that the peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue and that the alternative writ of mandamus should be and it is hereby Discharged.”
Establishes the court's decision to not issue the writ and to discharge the alternative writ.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, an inmate in a federal penitentiary, requested a speedy trial on detainers filed by the Escambia County Prosecuting Attorney. When no acti…
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 Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, an inmate of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court, contending that he had requested a speedy trial on detainers lodged against him by the prosecuting attorney for the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, but that he had received no response.
This court issued an alternative writ of mandamus commanding the prosecuting attorney to forthwith initiate proceedings to have petitioner returned for a speedy trial to the charge against him, or in the alternative to show cause, via return and brief, why peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue. Return was made by the county solicitor stating that the sheriff’s office had been directed to withdraw the de-tainers lodged against petitioner rather than to initiate return to Escambia County. A carbon copy of the letter of withdrawal has been filed with this court.
It thus appears that the peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue and that the alternative writ of mandamus should be and it is hereby
Discharged.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JT-, concur.