Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Hood v. State

Hood v. State

466 So. 2d 1232, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 949, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13436
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hood v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20295 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 10, 1985·No. No. 84-1930·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions. The record shows that the trial court had grounds for striking defendant’s demand for speedy trial which was filed by defendant pro se seven days after defendant was charged. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(c) provides for the striking of a demand for speedy trial filed by an accused who is not timely prepared for trial.

Defendant admitted that he was unfamiliar with the law and court procedures and requested that the public defender defend him. The public defender filed a demand for discovery after the demand for [1233]*1233speedy trial. See Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253, 262 (Fla.1984); Dickey v. McNeal, 445 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

Hood v. State, 466 So. 2d 1232, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 949, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13436 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

466 So. 2d 1232 (Hood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dickey v. McNeal
445 So. 2d 692 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Jones v. State
449 So. 2d 253 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)