Hargraves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hargraves v. State

922 So. 2d 248, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 465, 2006 WL 140425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-3433

StatusPublished

This text of 922 So. 2d 248 (Hargraves 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

Hargraves v. State, 922 So. 2d 248, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 465, 2006 WL 140425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny Hargraves’ petition for writ of prohibition, which sought his discharge on speedy trial grounds. We agree with the trial court that Hargraves was unavailable for trial¹ when he failed to appear at his pretrial conference after having been released on his own recognizance. The trial court determined, and we agree, the fact that Hargraves did not personally receive the state’s notice of pretrial conference and trial dates is not determinative, because he was represented by the public defender and notice was sent to his public defender. However, our denial is without prejudice to Hargraves to raise this issue in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Wells v. State, 881 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Petition for Writ of Prohibition DENIED.

SHARP, W., and SAWAYA, JJ., and PETERSON, E., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny Hargraves’ petition for writ of prohibition, which sought his discharge on speedy trial grounds. We agree with the trial court that Hargraves was unavailable for trial¹ when he failed to appear at his pretrial conference after having been released on his own recognizance. The trial court determined, and we agree, the fact that Hargraves did not personally receive the state’s notice of pretrial conference and trial dates is not determinative, because he was represented by the public defender and notice was sent to his public defender. However, our denial is without prejudice to Hargraves to raise this issue in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Wells v. State, 881 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Petition for Writ of Prohibition DENIED.

SHARP, W., and SAWAYA, JJ., and PETERSON, E., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 So. 2d 248, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 465, 2006 WL 140425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargraves-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack