STATE
v.
WILLIAMS
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.
James Williams, arrested for unarmed robbery and held in jail awaiting trial, sought habeas corpus relief arguing he had been detained without trial for more than three full court terms in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the discharge order, holding that Williams waived his statutory right by failing to object to state-initiated continuances and by not demanding trial.
The court held that the discharge order was not warranted. Although the State initiated the continuances, Williams waived his statutory protection by failing to object to the continuances and by not attempting to comply with Section 915.01(1) or contest the State's continuance motions.
“The progress docket indicates that appellee was booked for trial on a day certain during each term before this proceeding was instituted so there was no occasion for him to make formal request for trial.”
Establishes that Williams had notice of trial dates and opportunity to demand trial, supporting the waiver finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was arrested January 20, 1953, and informed against on February 17, 1953, for unarmed robbery. Between February and August 1953, the case was…
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 Unarmed Bank Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
James Williams was informed against for unarmed robbery. The case was set for trial March 12, 1953, at which time it was continued to the April term, Criminal Court of Record, Duval County. The progress docket shows that continuance granted on motion of defendant but the trial court permitted evidence to show that it was granted on motion of the State. April 12, 1953, the case was set for trial May 6, on which date it was continued to the June term on motion of the State. June 16, 1953 it was set for trial July 6, on which date it was passed to July 21, on motion of the State. On July 21, it was passed to July 22, was continued to August term of the court on motion of the State and set for trial August 18, 1953. August 25, 1953, defendant secured a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court seeking an order of discharge from custody on. the theory that' he had been held in jail without trial for more than three full terms of 'the Criminal Court'of Record, contrary to Florida Statutes Section 915.01, F.S.A. On consideration of the writ the trial court entered an order of discharge and this appeal was prosecuted by the State.
The only point for determination is whether or not the order of discharge was warranted by Section 915.01(1).
The question is controlled by Section 915.01(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Section 915.01(2), applies to offenders “arrested and released on bond” and has no application to appellee who was arrested or placed in jail January 20, 1953 and was informed against February 17, but made no application for trial at the February term. The terms of the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County are the Fourth Tuesday in February, April, June, August, October and December. The progress docket indicates that appellee was booked for trial on a day certain during each term before this proceeding was instituted so there was no occasion for him to make formal request for trial. Even if the state was the moving party for each continuance, there is no showing that defendant objected. His failure to object under the circumstances should be treated as a waiver. This is all the more true when the statute vests in the trial court some discretion as to granting or denying continuance and there is no showing that his discretion was abused. There is showing that he did not abuse it. Kelly v. State ex rel. Morgan, Fla., 54 So. 2d 431. Appellee made no attempt to comply with Section 915.01(1) and did not contest the motions of the State for continuance. It is unnecessary to discuss other grounds.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J„ and SEBRING and and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…al was held well within the limitation of time allowed by law. § 915.01 permits trial to be held as late as a third term following commitment to custody on the charge. See Gossett v. Hanlon, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 865; State v. Williams, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 295; Kelly v. State ex rel. Morgan, supra. F.S. § 26.33 F.S.A. provides for two terms a year for the 12th Judicial Circuit for Lee County, a Spring term to begin on the 2nd Monday in January and a Fall term to begin on the 2nd Monday in June of each ye…
-
Alton LOY v. Grayson, 99 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1957)…by him: “Silence on the part of the accused will not activate the statute. [Sec. 915.01(1)] If he desires a speedy trial he must ask for it, otherwise it will not be afforded him.” 54 So. 2d 432. In the recent case of State v. Williams, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 295, the defendant was informed against for unarmed robbery and the case was set for trial March 12, 1953. At that time it was continued to the April term of the court on the motion of the state. On April 12th the cause was set for May 6th but continued…
-
Cacciatore v. State, 226 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…nson v. Edwards, Fla.App., 219 . So. 2d 450. Turning to the procedure followed by the state after May 18, 1967, the record reflects no objections by the defendant to the state’s motion for continuance of May 3, 1968. In State v. Williams, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 295, 296, it was stated: ‡ jjt % ijt ‡ “Even if the state was the moving party for each continuance, there is no showing that defendant objected. His failure to object under the circumstances should be treated as a waiver. This is all the more true wh…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kelly v. State Ex Rel. Morgan, 54 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1951)