THOMAS RAPHAEL FASENMYER, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
A Florida Supreme Court case in which a prisoner seeking mandamus relief challenged Florida's filing of a detainer against him in California, arguing the state had abandoned prosecution by delaying filing. The court held that an escapee waives the right to object to a detainer and must pursue a speedy trial remedy.
An escapee who flees lawful custody waives any right to object to the filing of a detainer by the authorities from whose custody he escaped. Mere delay in filing a detainer does not constitute abandonment of prosecution, and the responsibility rests on the escapee to either surrender or seek speedy trial if incarcerated elsewhere.
“In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty in question.”
Establishes the standard for obtaining mandamus relief and explains why petitioner failed to meet it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFasenmyer was serving sentences in Florida custody in 1960 when he was released to Hernando County for trial on a breaking and entering charge. He esc…
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 Speedy Trial Right cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein petitioner seeks an order requiring respondent to withdraw a de-tainer which has been lodged against petitioner in the State of California.
In 1960 and prior thereto, petitioner was in custody of respondent serving several sentences imposed upon him by the Florida courts. On February 7, 1960, petitioner was released by the respondent to the custody of the Sheriff of Hernando County so that he could be tried for the crime of breaking and entering. On March 16, 1960, prior to trial, petitioner escaped.
Since that time petitioner has on various occasions, escaped from lawful custody in Missouri, Washington and California.
His last venture resulted in the imposition of a sentence on November 14, 1966 in California of five years to life imprisonment. A detainer was lodged on January 18, 1968, with the California au*130thorities by respondent, as Florida authorities desire to extradite petitioner for trial.
Petitioner says that Florida has abandoned any right to have him stand trial for the pending offense because of respondent’s failure to file the detainer at an earlier date.
In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty in question. See 16 F.L.P., Mandamus, § 10. Of course, a writ of mandamus may, in some instances, be enforced upon equitable principles (16 F.L.P., Mandamus, § 12), but certainly none are apparent in this proceeding. The fact that the detainer may affect petitioner’s right to a parole in California has no bearing upon the legality or equity of the detainer in view of his status as an “escapee.”
While incarcerated in other states petitioner had the right to maintain mandamus proceeding seeking a speedy trial in Florida. Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 200 So.2d 521 (Fla.1967).
If a person charged with the commission of a felony escapes from lawful custody he waives any right to object to the filing of a detainer in another jurisdiction by the authorities from whose custody he first escaped. Mere delay is not an abandonment of prosecution, as the responsibility rests upon the escapee to either surrender to the authorities or, if incarcerated in another jurisdiction, seek a speedy trial.
The alternative writ is discharged.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
City OF Miami Beach v. MR. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977)…applicant’s remedy is by certiorari in the circuit court. Because the representatives of the City must exercise some discretion in determining whether to grant or deny the conditional use application, mandamus does not lie. Fasenmyer v. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1969); Solomon v. Sanitarians’ Registration Board, 155 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Smith v. City of Margate, 155 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted, the decision of the District…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. City OF Miramar, 306 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…efines it with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. Where the act to be done does involve the exercise of discretion or judgment, it is a judicial or discretionary duty. Fasenmyer v. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969); Green v. Walter, 161 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1964); State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1961); Coral Gables v. State, 44 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1950); Somlyo v. Schott, 45 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1950). Here, clearly, the consideration of th…
-
Tywaun Jackson v. State, 802 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…have an indisputable legal duty. Id. See also Huffman v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S400, - So. 2d -, 2001 WL 617716 (Fla. June 7, 2000), revised opinion, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S741, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 617716 (Fla. Nov. 1, 2001); Fasenmyer v. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla.1969). Under the Act, Jackson has a clear legal right to receive an annual notice of his right to petition the court for release, an annual examination of his mental condition, and judicial review of his continued commitment. The Departme…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dickey v. Cir. Court, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1967)