Hood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hood v. State

466 So. 2d 1232, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 949, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13436

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1930

StatusPublished

This text of 466 So. 2d 1232 (Hood 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 So. 2d 1232, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 949, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack