State v. Holton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Holton

530 So. 2d 1081, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2150, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4059, 1988 WL 93733

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 530 So. 2d 1081 (State v. Holton) 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

State v. Holton, 530 So. 2d 1081, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2150, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4059, 1988 WL 93733 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The sole point on this state appeal from an order discharging the defendant under the speedy trial rule claims that the defendant’s demand for a speedy trial was not “filed” in the clerk’s office. It makes this contention notwithstanding the trial court’s finding, on ample evidence, that the notice was indeed filed and the undisputed fact that it was in any case timely served on the office of the state attorney, which ignored it.

This appeal is thus no more than a frivolous, transparent attempt to shift the burden of the dismissal from the prosecution to the judiciary. Its filing below by the state attorney and its continuation here by the attorney general represent an imposition upon the courts and demean those offices and the state of Florida which they represent. Our previous admonition to the state “that this court should not again be burdened with cases of such obvious lack of merit,” State v. Rodriguez, 515 So.2d 330, 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), has apparently gone unheeded. We will not tolerate its happening again.

AFFIRMED.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The sole point on this state appeal from an order discharging the defendant under the speedy trial rule claims that the defendant’s demand for a speedy trial was not “filed” in the clerk’s office. It makes this contention notwithstanding the trial court’s finding, on ample evidence, that the notice was indeed filed and the undisputed fact that it was in any case timely served on the office of the state attorney, which ignored it.

This appeal is thus no more than a frivolous, transparent attempt to shift the burden of the dismissal from the prosecution to the judiciary. Its filing below by the state attorney and its continuation here by the attorney general represent an imposition upon the courts and demean those offices and the state of Florida which they represent. Our previous admonition to the state “that this court should not again be burdened with cases of such obvious lack of merit,” State v. Rodriguez, 515 So.2d 330, 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), has apparently gone unheeded. We will not tolerate its happening again.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 1081, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2150, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4059, 1988 WL 93733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holton-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack