STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL., GEORGE NOVAK, RELATOR,
v.
THE HONORABLE ALFONSO C. SEPE, AS JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR DADE 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.
Florida appellate court denied prohibition where defendant's demand for speedy trial filed before information was premature and ineffective under criminal procedure rules.
A demand for speedy trial filed before the information is filed is premature and ineffective.
[1] A demand for speedy trial filed before the information is filed is premature and ineffective to invoke the 60-day speedy trial requirement.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator was arrested on June 14, 1971, and filed a demand for speedy trial the next day. An information was filed on August 6, 1971, dismissed on Sept…
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 Premature Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
By his suggestion the relator seeks to prohibit trial (set for week of October 12, 1971) in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, under Rule 1.191(a) (2) CrPR, 33 F.S.A., on the basis of having filed a demand for speedy trial (within 60 days). It .is made to appear by the suggestion in prohibition that relator was arrested on June 14, 1971. The day following his arrest he filed the demand for speedy trial. Thereafter an information thereon was filed on August 6, 1971. That information was dismissed on September 1, 1971, with leave to refile. It was refiled on September 13, 1971.
On October 4, 1971, relator moved for discharge (on the theory that he was entitled to discharge) because he was not brought to trial within 60 days following his June 15, 1971 demand for speedy trial.
Inasmuch as the demand for speedy trial was filed (after arrest) prior to the filing of the information, it is clear that the demand for speedy trial was premature and ineffective. See State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 129. The suggestion having failed to make a prima facie showing for issuance of a rule nisi in prohibition, the relator’s application therefor is denied, and the suggestion is dismissed.
It is so-ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Terry Michael Hanks & Rudolph Frank Seymour v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1971)