discharge violation in Florida

2024See State v. Nelson, 26 So. 3d 570, 579 (Fla. 2010). 15 November 2, 2015, when he was apprehended in Suwannee County, rather than April 28, 2017, the date on which he had previously claimed he was first arrested on the charges at issue.

2021ANALYSIS “[P]rohibition is an appropriate remedy to prohibit trial court proceedings where an accused has been denied his right to a speedy trial and his motion for discharge has been denied.” Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 1983) (citation omitted); see also Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1983) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to try a defendant when he is entitled to discharge on the ground of double jeopardy or collateral estoppel, or if he is entitled to a discharge because of a violation of his immunity from prosecution or his right to a speedy trial.”) (citing

2021ANALYSIS “[P]rohibition is an appropriate remedy to prohibit trial court proceedings where an accused has been denied his right to a speedy trial and his motion for discharge has been denied.” Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 1983) (citation omitted); see also Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1983) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to try a defendant when he is entitled to discharge on the ground of double jeopardy or collateral estoppel, or if he is entitled to a discharge because of a violation of his immunity from prosecution or his right to a speedy trial.”) (citing

2017Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So.2d 817, 821-22, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (granting writ to prevent trial on charges to which defendant had already pled nolo contendere because trial would violate double jeopardy clause).

2014However, “committee notes are only persuasive authority and are not binding; it is the intent of this Court in promulgating a rule of procedure, as expressed in the rule itself, that governs its interpretation.” D.K.D. v. State, 470 So. 2d 1387, 1389 (Fla. 1985). -4- computation of time rule is used to calculate the recapture window’s “two separate time periods”); Ricci v. Parker, 518 So. 2d 284, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (concluding that reading the speedy trial rule together with the time computation rule “effectively requires a discharge hearing in five business days”), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d

2014Admin. 2.514(a)(3); see also Baxter v. Downey, 581 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (explaining that the computation of time rule is used to calculate the recapture window’s “two separate time periods”); Ricci v. Parker, 518 So.2d 284, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (concluding that reading the speedy trial rule together with the time computation rule “effectively requires a discharge hearing in five business days”), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988).

2014However, “committee notes are only persuasive authority and are not binding; it is the intent of this Court in promulgating a rule of procedure, as expressed in the rule itself, that governs its interpretation.” D.K.D. v. State, 470 So. 2d 1387, 1389 (Fla. 1985). -4- computation of time rule is used to calculate the recapture window’s “two separate time periods”); Ricci v. Parker, 518 So. 2d 284, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (concluding that reading the speedy trial rule together with the time computation rule “effectively requires a discharge hearing in five business days”), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d

2014Admin. 2.514(a)(3); see also Baxter v. Downey, 581 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (explaining that the computation of time rule is used to calculate the recapture window’s “two separate time periods”); Ricci v. Parker, 518 So.2d 284, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (concluding that reading the speedy trial rule together with the time computation rule “effectively requires a discharge hearing in five business days”), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988).

1999We note that in State v. Frank, 573 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), this court cited Tucker and the language in footnote seven in affirming the lower court’s grant of a discharge for violation of the speedy trial rule.

1999Id. at 1071.