Dumas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dumas v. State

877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 2004 WL 1673433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 2004

DocketNo. 4D04-1363

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 877 So. 2d 941 (Dumas v. State) 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

Dumas v. State, 877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 2004 WL 1673433 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the state failed to bring the petitioner to trial within 175 days of his arrest for escape, which occurred on August 28, 2001, when he was brought before a magistrate for a first appearance hearing and held without bond on the escape charge, the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss upon its finding that petitioner’s arrest did not occur, and the speedy trial period did not commence, until November 17, 2003, when a capias was served on him. See Trainer v. Broome, 666 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 675 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1996).

We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition and instruct the trial court to discharge the petitioner.

GUNTHER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the state failed to bring the petitioner to trial within 175 days of his arrest for escape, which occurred on August 28, 2001, when he was brought before a magistrate for a first appearance hearing and held without bond on the escape charge, the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss upon its finding that petitioner’s arrest did not occur, and the speedy trial period did not commence, until November 17, 2003, when a capias was served on him. See Trainer v. Broome, 666 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 675 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1996).

We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition and instruct the trial court to discharge the petitioner.

GUNTHER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 2004 WL 1673433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dumas-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack