JOSEPH DICKOFF
v.
ROBERT T. DEWELL, AS JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTED TO ACT AS JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Joseph Dickoff sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Robert T. Dewell from proceeding with his embezzlement trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, after the State obtained six continuances over two years without adequate justification. The Florida Supreme Court granted the prohibition, finding that Dickoff's constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated.
The court held that the repeated granting of continuances over Dickoff's objection violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that a writ of prohibition is appropriate without requiring the defendant to first file a motion for discharge. The court refused to apply strict technical procedural requirements when fundamental constitutional rights are at stake.
“when it comes to the matter of safeguarding the constitutional rights of the individual the courts look to the substance rather than the technical forms of procedure taken to invoke the protection of the law”
Establishes that constitutional protections override strict procedural technicalities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDickoff was charged with embezzling funds from his principal, a Chicago resident. The case was originally set for July 1940 but was granted six contin…
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 Embezzlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Rule nisi in prohibition was heretofore issued and the case is again before us on answer and motion to quash the rule.
Petitioner was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County of embezzling the funds of his principal, a resident of Chicago, Illinois. The case was set for trial in July, 1940. There were six continuances granted on motion of the State over petitioner’s protest, because of the absence of a material witness. The material witness was petitioner’s principal in Chicago, Illinois.
At three successive terms of court petitioner filed written demands for a trial. The case was many times set for trial over a period of approximately two years, which necessarily required petitioner to be prepared to defend himself against the charge constantly over such period. Respondent insists that this remedy is unavailable since petitioner has failed to file a motion for a discharge and procure a ruling thereon and further that the written demands for trial were not filed at the beginning of the terms of court. We fail to find merit in these objections. There is no reason to require the petitioner to apply to the trial judge for a discharge from custody before resorting to this remedy. The repeated actions of granting the State’s motion for continuance over petitioner’s objection was tantamount to holding petitioner to answer the charge. Furthermore, when it comes to the matter of safeguarding the constitutional rights of the individual the courts look to the substance rather than the technical forms of procedure taken to invoke the protection of the law.
We now take up the objection that the petitioner’s demand for a trial was not filed at the beginning of the term. It appears that there was no occasion for such demand. The case was set and the defendant necessarily had reason to *242believe that the court would proceed with the trial and not grant a continuance except for lawful reason.
The law of this case is ruled by our opinion in the case of Feger v. Fish, as Judge, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605; Section 11, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution and Section 194, Criminal Procedure Act, 1939.
The answer is insufficient and the motion is not well taken and our judgment is that the rule nisi is made absolute, writ of prohibition will issue and the petitioner is discharged.
So ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD and BUFORD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)…information with respect to the charge of false imprisonment. A long and consistent line of Florida cases holds that an information charging false imprisonment must specifically allege an intent to secretly confine. State v. Register, 152 Fla. 239, 9 So. 2d 804 (1942); Holroyd v. State, 127 Fla. 152, 172 So. 700 (1937); Ross v. State, 15 Fla. 55 (1875); Gordon v. State, 145 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Therefore, petitioner’s conviction of false imprisonment must be reversed.1 Accordingly, the decision…
-
Sherrod v. The Honorable Arthur J. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1983)…S, Justice. By petition for review we have before us a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Sherrod v. Franza, 396 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court, Dickoff v. Dewell, 152 Fla. 240, 9 So. 2d 804 (1942), and with decisions of various district courts of appeal, Bates v. Keating, 396 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and cases holding similarly. Jurisdiction is pur…1 / 2
-
Lowe v. The Honorable Joseph E. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1983)…before us a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Lowe v. Price, 405 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), which expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of this Court, Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605 (1932); Dickoff v. Dewell, 152 Fla. 240, 9 So. 2d 804 (1942), and with decisions of various district courts of appeal, Bates v. Keating, 396 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and cases holding similarly. We have jurisdiction…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wm. G. Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1932)