JOHN L. ANDERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE WARREN H. EDWARDS, JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD, DIVISION A, ORANGE 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.
Anderson sought mandamus to compel dismissal of a DUI charge based on denial of his speedy trial right under Florida law. The court found that a delay of approximately five demand filings, caused by witness unavailability and docket conflicts rather than the defendant's actions, violated the speedy trial statute and warranted discharge.
Anderson's right to speedy trial was violated and he is entitled to discharge. Delays not caused by the accused but which the state could have reasonably prevented constitute unexcused delay under the speedy trial statute. The state must employ all reasonable means available to provide a speedy trial.
[1] A defendant's right to a speedy trial is violated when the state fails to bring the defendant to trial despite multiple timely demands, and the delays are not attributabl…
[2] Unavailability of a state's witness is generally insufficient to toll the statute for speedy 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“such delay includes not only delay caused by the state, but also that which it can reasonably prevent, or which is not caused by the accused”
Establishes that speedy trial statute covers delay the state could have prevented, not just delay it caused
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was charged with driving under the influence. He filed five demands for trial, with at least three being timely and properly filed at the beg…
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 Unreasonable Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks mandamus to compel his discharge and the dismissal of the pending criminal accusation against him of driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. His predicate lies in the asserted denial of a speedy trial as provided for in F.S.1967, Section 915.01(2), F.S.A.
Upon review of the entire record, inclusive of respondent’s return, it is clear that petitioner’s right to a speedy trial has been violated and that he is entitled to the relief requested.
Five times the defendant filed his demand. No question exists that at least three of the demands were timely made at the beginning of the term of court and in proper form. Trial was withheld because in one instance of the unavailability of the state’s witness and in two instances because of a crowded docket resulting in conflicts of trials. These were not caused by the petitioner.
Quite candidly the respondent does not seriously contend the unavailability of a witness is sufficient to toll the statute. Dickoff v. Dewell, 1942, 152 Fla. 240, 9 So.2d 804; Feger v. Fish, as Judge, 1932, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605.
Even though the state in this case did not “cause” the delay which arose through conflicts in trials, neither did the petitioner occasion it through any fault or affirmative action on his part. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any showing that the state employed all reasonable means available to give a speedy trial. Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, Quincy, Fla., Fla. 1967, 200 So.2d 521.
Our Supreme Court in the recent case of State ex rel. Johnson v. Edwards, 233 So.2d 393, opinion filed March 18, 1970, in confirming that the purpose of the speedy trial statute is to prevent an “unreasonable delay”, stated “such delay includes not only delay caused by the state, but also that which it can reasonably prevent, or which is not caused by the accused” and “the accused is entitled to a speedy trial and the only delay which is to be excused is delay which is caused by the accused.”
The instant case falls squarely within these guidelines of “unreasonable delay”.
Accordingly, the peremptory writ of mandamus is issued with directions that the accused be discharged from the prosecution.
It is so ordered.
CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Leocadio Leon v. Honorable H. Paul Baker, 238 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1970)…2d 595. We find this decision to be in direct conflict with the decision of this Court in State ex rel. Johnson v. Edwards, 233 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1970), and two decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District: Anderson v. Edwards, as Judge, 234 So. 2d 720 (1970), and Clark et al. v. Edwards, as Judge, 234 So. 2d 399 (1970). Jurisdiction vests under Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The facts are not in issue. Petitioner was arrested and on July 31, 1968, was released upon bond to…
-
Gereca v. State, 336 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ned. After this trial, the Appellant filed a motion for discharge claiming he had been denied his right to a speedy trial. This motion was denied by the trial court. Appellant relies almost entirely upon this Court’s opinion in Anderson v. Edwards, 234 So. 2d 720 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970) and the general language of Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In Anderson, supra, we indicated that unavailability of a witness was not sufficient to toll the provisions of Section 915.01(2), Florida Statutes. Tha…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Eddie James Flowers v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 241 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…s not a waiver by ascquiescence under the provisions of § 915.01(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Cf. State ex rel. Leon v. Baker, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 281; State ex rel. Johnson v. Edwards, Fla.1970, 233 So. 2d 393; Anderson v. Edwards, as Judge, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 720. Having reached this decision we do not issue the writ, being confident that it will not be necessary under the circumstances of this case. It is so ordered.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dickoff v. Dewell, 152 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1942)
- Dickey v. Cir. Court, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1967)
- Wm. G. Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1932)
- State of Fla. ex rel. James A. Johnson v. Honorable Warren H. Edwards, 233 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1970)