Perdomo v. State

960 So. 2d 11, 2007 WL 676011
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 7, 2007
Docket3D06-594
StatusPublished

This text of 960 So. 2d 11 (Perdomo 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
Perdomo v. State, 960 So. 2d 11, 2007 WL 676011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

960 So.2d 11 (2007)

Maykel Omar PERDOMO, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D06-594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 7, 2007.

Martin J. Beguiristain, Miami, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General and Laura Moszer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, C.J., and CORTIÑAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

*12 PER CURIAM.

We affirm as the defendant's Motion for Discharge did not, as a matter of law, constitute a "Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial Time" as contemplated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p)(2). Clark v. State, 698 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Clark v. State
698 So. 2d 1274 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
960 So. 2d 11, 2007 WL 676011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perdomo-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.