STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RICHARD SAVAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
HONORABLE STANTON S. KAPLAN, AS COUNTY COURT JUDGE, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 denial of a writ of prohibition was proper because the speedy trial rule did not apply to the municipal court proceedings.
Appellant was charged with ordinance violations and later demanded a jury trial, transferring the case to county court. In county court, he moved for …
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
ANDERSON, ALLEN C., Associate Judge.
Appellant was charged with the violation of municipal ordinances on March 4, 1973. More than 90 days later these charges were scheduled to be tried before the appropriate municipal court. No formal attempt was made in municipal court to raise the question of entitlement to a speedy trial.
Prior to trial time in municipal court appellant demanded a trial by jury which caused the charges to be transferred to the county court for trial. In county court appellant moved for discharge under 3.191, FRCrP, 33 F.S.A., on the grounds he had been denied a speedy trial in the municipal court. The county judge denied the discharge and appellant filed a suggestion for writ of prohibition in circuit court for the reason “ . . . that the Relator’s right to a speedy trial within 90 days of the date of his arrest has been violated.”
The issuance of the writ was denied and appellant has appealed that denial. We find no error in the refusal to issue the writ. The county court clearly had jurisdiction to try the matter transferred.
Whether 3.191, FRCrP, provides procedural or substantive rights need not be discussed. That rule by its very language did not govern proceedings in municipal courts.
Affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thaddies, 364 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…der which found that Thaddies was continuously available for trial from May 28, 1976, until May 17, 1977. This court lyis held that the speedy trial rule, Rule 3.191, does not apply to proceedings in municipal courts. State ex rel Savage v. Kaplan, 297 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Accordingly, Thaddies had no rights under the rule on the charges filed against him in municipal court. It is true that in State v. Hendricks, 309 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), we held that a defendant waived his speedy trial…
-
City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Mattlin, 566 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…of this state, all ordinance violations are to be prosecuted in the coun [*1332] ty court. Appellant asserts that prior to adoption of article V, the speedy trial rule did not apply to municipal court proceedings. See State ex rel. Savage v. Kaplan, 297 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). See also State v. Thaddies, 364 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). These cases were in accord with the view that ordinance violations tried in municipal courts, even though based on state criminal statutes and punishable by incarce…