HONORABLE JACK M. TURNER, CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE EX REL. MICHAEL J. PELLERIN, 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 reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that had granted a writ of prohibition discharging a defendant from custody. The Court held that a defendant's motion for speedy trial, while made after an information was filed, was properly struck because the defendant was not prepared for trial, as evidenced by subsequent motions for discovery and depositions.
The Court held that a valid motion for speedy trial under Rule 3.191 requires both that the motion be made after an indictment, information, or trial affidavit is filed, and that the defendant be or will be prepared for trial. The respondent met the first requirement but failed the second because his subsequent motions for discovery and depositions demonstrated he was not prepared for trial.
[1] A motion for speedy trial is valid only if made subsequent to the filing of an indictment, information, or trial affidavit against the defendant.
[2] A defendant seeking a speedy trial must demonstrate a bona fide desire to obtain trial and be prepared, or will be prepared, for trial at the time the motion is made.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“First, the motion for speedy trial must be made subsequent to the date of the filing of an indictment, information or trial affidavit against the defendant. Second, the defendant must be or will be prepared for trial at the time he makes his motion for speedy trial.”
Establishes the two-part test for perfecting rights under speedy trial rule
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent was arrested on February 18, 1971, and informed against on March 18, 1971. He moved for speedy trial on March 26, 1971. On March 29, respon…
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 Pretrial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a certiorari review of an order of the District Court of Appeal, Third District on grounds of direct conflict with a prior decision of this Court (State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 129) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., Art. V, § 4, F.S.A.
Respondent was arrested on February 18, 1971, was informed against on March 18, 1971, moved for speedy trial on March 26, 1971, and then moved for discharge on July 16, 1971. On July 28, 1971, his motion for discharge was denied and his motion for *130speedy trial was struck. On Suggestion for writ of prohibition to the Third District Court of Appeal, the writ was issued and respondent was ordered discharged from custody. Ergo, our review.
Hanks, supra, enunciates two basic requirements which must be met by one seeking to perfect his rights under Rule 3.191, Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A. First, the motion for speedy trial must be made subsequent to the date of the filing of an indictment, information or trial affidavit against the defendant. Second, the defendant must be or will be prepared for trial at the time he makes his motion for speedy trial. Otherwise, the motion will be considered spurious and may be stricken.
Sub judice, the first requirement of Hanks, supra, was met, but respondent fails to pass review on the second requirement.
On March 29 (2 days after filing his motion for speedy trial) respondent moved to compel disclosure of all evidence favorable to him, and then on April S he also moved to compel certain witnesses to give depositions.
Notwithstanding the state’s conduct surrounding pre-trial discovery, respondent’s energetic interventions through motions constitute the antithesis of “a bona fide desire to obtain trial”. They certainly are not suggestive of the wondrous thought that respondent “is available for trial, has diligently investigated his case, and that he is prepared”, or even that he “will be prepared for trial.”
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1984)…erely filing spurious demands for the speedy trial for which he is not, in fact, prepared.” State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla.1971). State ex rel. Ranalli v. Johnson, 277 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1973); Turner v. State ex rel. Pellerin, 272 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1973). Defendant’s argument is without merit. Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by permitting a state witness to testify as to the plea negotiations entered into by defendant and by permitting the prosecutor and a state witness…
-
Honorable C. P. Rubiera v. Dade Cnty., 305 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1974)…ERVIN, Justice (dissenting) : In my opinion there is no conflict with Turner v. State ex rel. Pellerin (Fla.1973), 272 So. 2d 129, cited therefor by petitioner, or with State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman (Fla.1971), 253 So. 2d 129, cited in Pellerin, and hence we have no jurisdiction in the instant case. The facts in Pellerin and Hanks are clearly distinguishable from this case.…
-
State v. Kaufman, 421 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ss for trial. Such actions certainly are not suggestive of the conclusion that a defendant has diligently investigated his case and that he is prepared or will be prepared for trial [within five days]. 253 So. 2d at 130. See also Turner v. Pellerin, 272 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1973); Furland v. Conkling, 405 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Thus, State v. Embry, 322 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1975), is not in point. There, the court held .that the filing of a motion to suppress was not indicative of the lack of a bona fide desir…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Terry Michael Hanks & Rudolph Frank Seymour v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1971)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Michael J. Pellerin v. Honorable Jack M. Turner, 274 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)