State Ex Rel. Green v. Patterson, Pinellas CountyState Ex Rel. Green v. Patterson, Pinellas County
This is an original proceeding in prohibition. Michael Green filed his Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition in this court contending that the lower court is without jurisdiction to proсeed with the prosecution of relator, and seeking an absolute discharge from the сrimes under Florida‘s Speedy Trial Rule,
Pertinent facts disclosed by the suggestion are:
On February 21, 1972, relator was arrested for violations of the Narcotics Drug Law and Drug Abuse Law. On March 10, 1972, at a preliminary hearing the Stаte entered a nolle prosequi to all charges. On May 3, 1972, the State filed informations groundеd on the same criminal episodes which led to his arrest. The record shows that the capias issued on May 3, 1972 was served on September 18, 1972.
Relator was arraigned on October 6, 1972, pled not guilty, and trial was set for November 15, 1972. Relator filed his Motion for Discharge on October 18, 1972, pursuаnt to
At the hearing on the motion for discharge the arresting officer testified that after the cаpias was issued he made many attempts to serve it, to no avail. Shortly after it was issued he wеnt to the home of relator‘s sister and then to his mother‘s home where he had been informed relator was staying. He told relator‘s mother the problem and requested that relator come to the police station. He told relator‘s mother the problem and requested that relator come to the police station. He then contacted relator‘s аttorney and advised him that the police were looking for relator. He had information thаt relator was living for a few days at a time in Eden Isles Apartments and then moving to an unknown location on Redington Beach. However, he was unable to locate relator. Sometime in July or August, while the arresting officer was away, relator came to the police statiоn to turn himself in. Relator‘s attorney stated that relator called him on August 2, 1972 about the case, and that from that point on he attempted to be served with the warrant. The arresting officer also filed a sworn affidavit setting forth the pertinent dates and information. The affidavit also showеd that relator turned himself in on September 18, 1972, and that he knew he was wanted by the police dеpartment.
Under the Speedy Trial Rule the time within which a person must be tried
However, if the State presents any evidence tending to show non-availability of the accusеd for a trial, the accused then must establish by competent proof his continuous availаbility during the required period of time;
At the hearing on the motion to ascertain the availability of relator under
The 180-day time period commenсed to run from February 21, 1972, when relator was taken into custody; State ex rel. Allen v. Taylor, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So.2d 689, reversed on other grounds by the Supreme Court on March 21, 1973, 275 So.2d 238. Seventy-two days elapsed before the information was filed and the аrresting officer attempted to serve the capias on him. Relator remained unavailable for trial until August 2, 1972, during which time the trial date was held in abeyance. He filed his motion for discharge on October 18, 1972, 77 days after he became available for trial.
Since trial was set within the 180-dаy time period, and relator filed his motion for discharge before the expiration of the 180-day period, we hold that the trial court was correct in denying relator‘s motion for dischаrge.
Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is Denied and the rule nisi heretofore entered is dissolved.
LILES, A.C.J. and McNULTY, J., concur.