State v. Hyder

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Hyder

352 So. 2d 56, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 4013

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 15, 1977·No. No. 50493·Published

Opinion

KARL, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Hyder v. State, reported at 338 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), which conflicts directly with State ex rel. Williams v. Eastmoore, 297 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and O’Bryan v. State, 326 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), certiorari denied 336 So.2d 602 (Fla.1976).

[57] We are confronted here with the identical question as that raised in State v. Bassham, Fla., 352 So.2d 55, filed September 15, 1977, whether a detainer placed by one county for a prisoner held by another county is considered custody within the contemplation of the speedy trial rule from which time speedy trial time commences to run.

For the reasons stated in State v. Bass-ham, supra, the decision of the District Court in the instant case is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

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

KARL, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Hyder v. State, reported at 338 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), which conflicts directly with State ex rel. Williams v. Eastmoore, 297 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and O’Bryan v. State, 326 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), certiorari denied 336 So.2d 602 (Fla.1976).

[57] We are confronted here with the identical question as that raised in State v. Bassham, Fla., 352 So.2d 55, filed September 15, 1977, whether a detainer placed by one county for a prisoner held by another county is considered custody within the contemplation of the speedy trial rule from which time speedy trial time commences to run.

For the reasons stated in State v. Bass-ham, supra, the decision of the District Court in the instant case is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

State v. Hyder, 352 So. 2d 56, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 4013 (Fla. 1977).

Pincite

352 So. 2d 56 (State v. Hyder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related