ELLIOTT R. SUBERVI, PETITIONER,
v.
HON. JEFFORDS D. MILLER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner Elliott Subervi sought a writ of prohibition to discharge pending criminal charges on speedy trial grounds under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The Florida court of appeal rejected his claim because he faced a probation violation charge rather than an untried indictment, information, or complaint, which falls outside the Agreement's protections.
The court held that a detainer based on a probation violation charge is not a detainer based on 'any untried indictment, information or complaint' and therefore does not fall within the Interstate Agreement on Detainers' 180-day speedy trial requirement.
[1] A detainer based upon a probation violation charge does not trigger the Interstate Agreement on Detainers' requirement for trial within 180 days.
[2] The Interstate Agreement on Detainers applies to untried indictments, informations, or complaints, not to probation violation charges.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Interstate Agreement on Detainers requires a state issuing a detainer to take to trial an out-of-state prisoner who files a proper request for trial within 180 days”
Petitioner's argument regarding the 180-day speedy trial requirement under the Agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSubervi was imprisoned in New Jersey with a Florida detainer pending against him. He would be transferred to Florida upon expiration of his New Jersey…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interstate Agreement On Detainers cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner seeks our writ of prohibition alleging that he should have been discharged from pending criminal proceedings because of a violation of his speedy trial rights. He is a prisoner in New Jersey and Florida authorities have placed a detainer against him. He will be turned over to Florida authorities upon expiration of his New Jersey sentence, or release from their prison.
He says the Interstate Agreement on Detainers requires a state issuing a detainer to take to trial an out-of-state prisoner who files a proper request for trial within 180 days.
Section 945.41(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) states:
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution in a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within 180 days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition
We must deny the petition because petitioner is charged in Florida with violation of probation, and he is not seeking a trial of any “untried indictment, information, or complaint.”
Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985) is on point and it holds that “[A] detainer based upon a probation-violation charge is not a detainer based on ‘any untried indictment, information or complaint,’ within the meaning of [the act].”
PETITION DENIED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2000)…rafted order specifically detailing the portions of the record that proved the claims were legally insufficient or conclusively rebutted. To the contrary, such a conclusory order would have been insufficient. Patton’s reliance on Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), for the proposition that the court cannot rely on portions of the record supplied by the state attorney is not well taken because the record in that case was not given to the trial court for review at the time the response was f…
-
Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…recognized ground for post-conviction relief. However, in Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant has the burden of showing that his plea was not knowing or voluntary. See also, Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Furthermore, an allegation that a plea was involuntary or was based on a misunderstanding or mistake can be refuted by a written plea agreement or plea transcript which conclusively establishes the defendant’s understanding and…
-
Oehling v. State, 659 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Debose v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We have held in the past that the state cannot cure the trial court’s oversight by designating portions of the record to refute a defendant’s allegations. Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also McCray v. State, 633 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. PETERSON, C.J., and HARR…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (U.S. 1985)