Bouchacra v. Leffler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bouchacra v. Leffler

413 So. 2d 791, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19712

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1982

DocketNo. 82-151

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 413 So. 2d 791 (Bouchacra v. Leffler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bouchacra v. Leffler, 413 So. 2d 791, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19712 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

Bouchacra seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding with the State’s prosecution of him, alleging that the trial judge should have discharged him because his speedy trial rule rights were violated.

There was sufficient evidence for the trial judge to conclude that Bouchacrá had made himself unavailable for trial during the one hundred and eighty days from his arrest, thus completely removing Bou-chacra from the protection of the rule. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3); State ex rel. Green v. Patterson, 279 So.2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Thigpen v. State, 350 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1977). Furthermore, this factual ruling should not be reviewed and reversed by means of this petition for prohibition. See Sherrod v. Franza, 396 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DENIED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COWART, Judge.

Bouchacra seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding with the State’s prosecution of him, alleging that the trial judge should have discharged him because his speedy trial rule rights were violated.

There was sufficient evidence for the trial judge to conclude that Bouchacrá had made himself unavailable for trial during the one hundred and eighty days from his arrest, thus completely removing Bou-chacra from the protection of the rule. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3); State ex rel. Green v. Patterson, 279 So.2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Thigpen v. State, 350 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1977). Furthermore, this factual ruling should not be reviewed and reversed by means of this petition for prohibition. See Sherrod v. Franza, 396 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DENIED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 So. 2d 791, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouchacra-v-leffler-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack