CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6307
...and further on July 7, 1971 relator filed objections to trial and motion for discharge on the grounds that said Court of Record was without jurisdiction in that the relator had not been arraigned within 45 days from the date of transfer as stated in Section 932.62, F.S., this motion was denied on the date of trial and trial commenced, further that the trial was not completed because the trial judge was served with a rule nisi in prohibition issued by the Circuit Court on July 9, 1971. On the return date set in said rule nisi the respondent moved to quash the rule and the relator moved that the same be made absolute. *583 The question here to be determined is whether the time element of 45 days in Section 932.62, F.S....
...Neither the failure to arraign nor an irregularity in the arraignment shall affect the validity of the proceeding if the defendant proceeds to trial without objection to such failure or irregularity. Rule 1.-160(b) Cr.PR. [33 F.S.A.]. “The provision in § 932.62, F.S.A....
...It seems reasonable to conclude that if it was the legislative intent that failure to arraign within 45 days would require dismissal of the action a similar provision for dismissal for failure to arraign within such time would have been included in § 732.62 [932.62] F.S.A.” The circuit court judge followed the law as set forth in Schneider v....
