KULDIP SINGH MUNDI, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, directing the State to release the petitioner from state custody.
The petitioner was charged with several counts and brought from federal custody. The trial court granted his motion to dismiss the charges, and the St…
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
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner requests this court to enter a writ of mandamus to direct the State to deliver him to federal custody. We treat the request as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, see Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and grant the petition.
Kuldip Singh Mundi was charged with several counts relating to a ticket exchange scheme and was brought to Miami from federal custody pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Mundi filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the trial court. The State appealed the dismissal.
The State charges against Mundi have been dismissed and thus there is no authority for the State to continue to hold Mundi. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(e)(2). Therefore, we grant Mundi’s Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus filed in connection with the State’s detention of the petitioner, which said detention stems from the State’s criminal charges which have now been dismissed. Naturally, any release of the petitioner, pursuant to Rule 9.140(e)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, is subject to the Federal detainer that is currently lodged against the petitioner. Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…s unrelated to the offense for which Alvarez was convicted. By contrast, restrictions upon this sort of conduct may be highly relevant in a case where the crime itself involves the use or distribution of unlawful drugs. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Alvarez, therefore, is of no avail to Gregory- In Huff the probationer was directed not to reside in close proximity to “a known drug area,” as defined by his probation officer. Such a condition suffers from numerous problems, i…
-
Daniels v. State, 583 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…he imposition of costs, but reverse a portion of the conditions of his probation. The conditions relating to intoxicants and drugs are not reasonably related to the offense. Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Cf. Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (conditions relating to this type of conduct are proper in a drug-related case). The record does not indicate that Mr. Daniels had a problem with substance abuse. Therefore, condition 6, prohibiting Mr. Daniels from using intoxica…
-
Navarrion Johnson v. State, 701 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…favorably to the accused. See § 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). Additionally, any ambiguity in a condition imposed at sentencing will affect the state’s ability at a later date to establish a willful violation of that condition. See Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). This statutory condition clearly provides adequate warning to probationers to avoid illegal drugs.5 It warns them not to possess narcotics or prescription drags without a doctor’s prescription. We doubt that a typical reader of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence