CopyCited 91 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 26245
...We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find ample evidence to support the convictions. Torres-Arboledo next argues that because he was not brought to trial on the instant charges within 180 days after requesting final disposition of the charges, section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), that his motion for discharge was improperly denied....
...ropriate Florida officials." The IAD provides for a prisoner in one jurisdiction to require the speedy disposition of charges pending against him in another jurisdiction when those charges provide the basis for the lodging of a detainer against him. Section 941.45(3)(a) provides in pertinent part: (3) REQUEST FOR FINAL DISPOSITION....
...prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner. Section 941.45(3)(b) states that the prisoner shall give or send the "written notice and request for final disposition ......
...l promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court... ." Torres-Arboledo relies on State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787 (Fla.2d DCA 1983), which holds that substantial compliance with the requirements of section
941.45(3) is sufficient to invoke the benefits of the agreement....
...IAD when there has been substantial compliance with the act, Torres-Arboledo fails to meet even a substantial compliance standard. This case is clearly distinguishable from Roberts. Although Roberts failed to strictly comply with the requirement of section 941.45(3)(b), he was successful in communicating his demands to the Florida authorities by personally sending the necessary information....
...ng State ex rel. Saxton v. Moore, 598 S.W.2d 586, 590 (Mo. App. 1980)); See also State v. Culligan,
454 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (substantial compliance test not met where motion by prisoner was inadequate to provide the information required by section
941.45(3)(a)(b))....
...We also reject Torres-Arboledo's claim that the California warden failed to fulfill his obligation under the agreement. See, e.g., Rockmore v. State, 21 Ariz. App. 388, 519 P.2d 877 (1974) (relief should not be denied a prisoner based on custodial officials' failure to carry out their obligation under the agreement). Under section 941.45(3)(b), a custodial officer has no duty to forward a notice and request for disposition to the receiving authorities until a request is given to him by the prisoner....
...The custodian's duty to forward necessary information is only triggered by an affirmative act on the part of the prisoner bringing the request to the custodian's attention. Merely having the request pass through the prison's mail system is insufficient to establish a custodian's duty under section 941.45(3)(b)....
CopyCited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1992 WL 164
...emed ineffective for waiving the IAD trial period in order to represent Johnson on this issue. Moreover, even if trial counsel had not agreed to the waiver, the continuance could have been granted to the State under the IAD's "good cause" provision, section 941.45(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), as the continuance was requested when the prosecuting attorney was called to military reserve duty....
CopyCited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 149681
...Under the IAD, a prisoner in one participating jurisdiction may require the speedy disposition of charges pending against that prisoner in another participating jurisdiction when those charges provide the basis for lodging a detainer against the prisoner. § 941.45(3), Fla....
...The IAD also permits the jurisdiction which has lodged the detainer to request custody of the prisoner, but for any proceeding which is made possible by this subsection "trial shall be commenced within 120 days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state." § 941.45(4)(c), Fla....
...If the action is not brought to trial within the time periods specified, then the court "shall enter an order dismissing the [indictment, information, or complaint] with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any force or effect." § 941.45(5)(c), Fla....
...1441,
108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990); Shere v. State,
579 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1991). For the reasons stated above, we affirm the convictions and the sentence of death. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §
941.45, Fla....
...[4] §
921.141(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1987). [5] §
921.141(5)(i), Fla. Stat. (1987). [6] Vining also claims that his motion for discharge was improperly denied because he was not brought to trial on the charges within 180 days after his request for final disposition under section
941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1987)....
CopyCited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Defendant next contends that his confession was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436,
86 S.Ct. 1602,
16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). At a hearing on the motion to suppress, it appeared from the testimony that defendant was first taken into custody in Missouri under the authority of a detainer lodged pursuant to section
941.45, Florida Statutes (1973)....
CopyCited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...The totality of their testimony shows that excusing these women for cause was proper. Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court should have automatically dismissed the charges against him once the 120-day limits specified in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1979), had elapsed....
...This fundamental right is neither unwaivable nor self-executing. We see no justification for granting greater dignity to a statutory provision designed to provide for cooperation between the states to effect the "expeditious and orderly disposition of ... *197 charges" against one in custody of another state. § 941.45, Fla. Stat. (1979). The underlying policy of the IAD is to enhance the possibility of rehabilitation by resolving all outstanding charges against a convict regardless of which state has filed the charges. See § 941.45(1), Fla....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 552814
...We do not find this to be an inappropriate burden. *742 Nor do we find it to be an unreasonable burden given the ability of the state to obtain a defendant from the custody of either another state or the federal authorities pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. [3] See § 941.45, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1989 WL 106357
...erit discussion. [1] As his first claim, Fuente maintains that he was entitled to discharge because the state failed to bring him to trial within 180 days after his request for final disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, paragraph 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...Florida Jail on December 12, 1985. On March 4, 1986, 246 days after his request for final disposition was received by Florida authorities, Fuente filed a motion for discharge claiming that his right to be brought to trial within 180 days pursuant to section 941.45(3) had been violated. At the hearing on the motion for discharge, the state took the position that the 180-day period was tolled pursuant to paragraph 941.45(6)(a), because Fuente was "unable to stand trial" due to his physical condition....
...is murder. Under these circumstances, while Fuente was being transferred to Lompoc for medical treatment, during the time he was housed there and during his return to the Memphis facility, he was unable to stand trial within the meaning of paragraph 941.45(6)(a)....
...ors was unsupported by the evidence; 3) that state's witness Cabrera was improperly rehabilitated by prior consistent statement; 4) that an unqualified witness was allowed to testify concerning the meaning of the X on the victim's dental X-rays. [2] Section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provides in pertinent part: (3) REQUEST FOR FINAL DISPOSITION....
...vered 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 to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint... . Section 941.45(3)(b) provides in pertinent part: The written notice and request for final disposition......
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 12585, 1996 WL 284966
...§ 2254. Remeta raises numerous issues on appeal with
respect to both his conviction and sentence. We conclude that
Remeta's claim regarding the state's alleged violation of the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"), Fla.Stat. § 941.45, is
an issue of first impression in this circuit and therefore warrants
discussion....
...The IAD
does dictate that a state's failure to try a prisoner within the
statutory time period, prior to being returned to the "sending"
state, must result in dismissal of any untried portion of the
outstanding indictment. See Fla.Stat. § 941.45(e)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Although appellant raises two points for our consideration, only one merits extensive discussion. Appellant's main contention is that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the information filed against him since the State did not try him on the burglary charge in accordance with the provisions of Section 941.45(3)(a), (b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1979), part of Florida's "Interstate Agreement on Detainers." Finding no reversible error on this or the other point, we affirm....
...April 27, 1982 the State Attorney acknowledged appellant's letter and forwarded certain forms to appellant which are believed to have constituted the forms necessary for the officials of Fishkill to certify factors concerning the defendant's commitment in accordance with Section 941.45(3)(a)....
...October 5, 1982 appellant returned to Jacksonville following his parole from New York institution. December 2, 1982 appellant filed a motion to dismiss contending that the information should be dismissed because he was not brought to trial within 180 days as required by Section 941.45(3)(a)....
...20, was an ineffectual demand for speedy trial since a detainer had not been lodged against him at the time. The court further ruled that New York's failure to furnish appellant with notice of the lodging of the May 28, 1982 detainer as required by Section 941.45(3)(c) did not entitle him to discharge....
...At the outset, it must be pointed out that appellant's letter of March 31, 1982, was unaccompanied by a certificate stating appellant's New York term of commitment, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, and other facts required under Section 941.45(3)(a)....
...*412 The information supplied by appellant here thus does not compare with that furnished by the inmate which was found to substantially comply with the statute in State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983). [1] Nevertheless, appellant contends that he is entitled to discharge because, contrary to Section
941.45(b) and (c), the New York prison officials never notified him of the filing of the detainer or of his right to make a request for final disposition after the filing of a detainer, and failed to assist him in the preparation of interstate forms 2, 3 and 4, which presumably would have supplied the factual information required under Section
941.45(3)(a). Appellant cites Romans v. District Court, 633 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1981), and People v. Lincoln, 601 P.2d 641 (Colo. App. 1979), in support of his position that Section
941.45(3)(c) is mandatory, and that the failure of the New York officials to inform him of the detainer and his right to request final disposition requires his dismissal....
...In these decisions, the courts held that the charges against the defendants should be dismissed because the officials of the sending state failed to comply with Article III(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, which provision is identical to Section 941.45(3)(c)....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 167288
...If the acts required under this section do not precede the filing of the demand, then the demand is invalid and shall be stricken *603 upon motion of the prosecuting attorney. Nothing hereinabove stated shall affect a prisoner's right to speedy trial under section 941.45-941.50, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 276289
...ghts to speedy trial because of the failure of the trial court to dismiss criminal charges to which he had previously pled guilty. We deny the writ of prohibition, finding that the statutory safeguards of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), section 941.45, Florida Statutes, do not apply to sentencing detainers where a defendant has fled the state after pleading guilty, but prior to sentencing....
...un concurrently with defendant's Pennsylvania sentence. Only the Florida charges remained unresolved. On September 26, 1994, defendant submitted formal written notice and requested final disposition of his charges by the State of Florida pursuant to section 941.45, article III(a) and (b) of the IAD....
...in certain rehabilitative programs in Pennsylvania for which he would otherwise be eligible. The state maintains that defendant's current predicament is solely a product of his own action in fleeing the state in the first place. ANALYSIS OF THE IAD Section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1995), adopts and incorporates into this state's jurisprudence the IAD, articles IIX....
...ment and rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is the policy of the party states and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition ... of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. § 941.45 (emphasis supplied)....
...or liberal construction to effectuate the compact's purpose of encouraging the expeditious disposition of outstanding foreign charges with the added result of decreasing uncertainty and thereby facilitating prisoner rehabilitation. See IAD, art. IX, § 941.45, Fla....
...2182,
33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), to determine whether a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial has occurred. See Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355, 1364 n. 13 (Colo.1993), and cases cited therein. [3] In State v. Bivona,
496 So.2d 130, 132 n. 2 (1986), our supreme court recognized that section
941.45 would apply to a prisoner who fled the jurisdiction after committing the crime but before pleading guilty: Eliminating [from Florida's speedy trial rule] the right [of persons incarcerated out of state] to speedy trial upon demand did not deprive out-of-state convicts of the right, since, as noted in the Committee Note to the 1980 Amendment [to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191], such prisoners still have the benefit of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, sections
941.45-941.50, Florida Statutes, which provides a statutory right to speedy trial upon demand. See §
941.45, Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...RYDER, Judge. The state appeals from the trial court's order dismissing two informations filed against one Jeffrey Roberts. The issue presented is whether there must be strict or substantial compliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1979), for the 180-day time period to begin to run. Under the facts presented, we hold that substantial compliance with section 941.45(3) will enable a defendant to seek relief under that Act....
...l requirements under the IADA. A hearing was held on November 10, 1981. On December 8, 1981, the trial court granted Roberts' motions to dismiss. The state filed this appeal. The issue of strict versus substantial compliance with the requirements of section 941.45(3) has not been specifically addressed before in Florida....
...517, 364 A.2d 391 (1976); see generally 98 A.L.R.3d 160, 206-207 (1980). In short, in adopting a substantial compliance test, these courts have relied upon the statutory provision of the IADA mandating a liberal construction in order to effectuate its purposes. Florida has adopted the liberal construction provision. § 941.45(9), Florida Statutes (1979). The purpose of the Act, as stated in the statute, is to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of outstanding foreign charges lodged against a prisoner which obstruct his treatment and rehabilitation. § 941.45(1)....
...1st DCA 1982) (holding that the state's substantial compliance with the Uniform Interstate Extradition Act, section
941.14, et seq., Florida Statutes (1981), validated a two-day late Governor's extradition warrant). In the case sub judice, Roberts substantially complied with section
941.45(3) by sending the documents which were received by the state attorney's office on December 15, 1980....
...Roberts had not been transferred out of the New York state prison system to another jurisdiction's prison system; he remained in the New York system throughout the pertinent time period. As Roberts was not brought to Florida until July 15, 1981, more than 180 days after section 941.45 was invoked, the circuit court's dismissal of the two informations was proper....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. November 21, 1979. *1226 Richard G. Smith, Clearwater, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellees. SCHEB, Judge. Does the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1977), apply to a detainer filed against a prisoner based on a charge that he violated the conditions of his probation? The trial court held the Detainers Act does not apply under these circumstances....
...In May 1978 the Sheriff of Pinellas County filed a detainer based upon the probation officer's affidavit with Georgia authorities. On May 25, 1978, Gaddy requested the Pinellas County Circuit Court to make a final disposition of the probation violation charge pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. § 941.45, Fla....
...le to be moved to a prison facility closer to his family. The Detainers Act requires that when a state files a detainer, it must, upon request of the prisoner, provide a hearing on the charge that forms the basis of the detainer within 180 days. Id. § 941.45(3)(a)....
...e Detainers Act. The Act provides that if a hearing is not provided within 180 days, "such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice." Id. § 941.45(3)(d)....
...ners based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints, and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation." § 941.45(1), Fla....
...ion violation. Accordingly, because the state failed to provide Gaddy a hearing within 180 days of his request, we dismiss with prejudice the instant charges that Gaddy violated his probation. BOARDMAN, Acting C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 941.45(3)(a) provides: Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party stat...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...the Tennessee authorities. The trial court granted the petition and permanently enjoined the State of Florida from delivering custody of appellee to the Tennessee authorities on the grounds that the "anti-shuttling" provision of the interstate act, Section 941.45(4)(e), Florida Statutes, [3] rendered the Tennessee indictments invalid because appellee had been returned to the original place of imprisonment before being tried upon those indictments....
...m in which to utilize the anti-shuttling provision to attack the validity of the indictment, information or complaint, a question neither raised by the parties nor decided by us. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §§ 941.45 et seq., F.S. [2] § 941.45(4), F.S. [3] § 941.45(4)(e): "If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (e) of subsection (5), such indictment, informat...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Gen., Tampa, for appellant. Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, St. Petersburg, for appellee. CAMPBELL, Judge. Appellant, State of Florida, takes this appeal from a final order entered under the authority of section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1979) (Interstate Agreement on Detainers), which dismissed an information charging appellee with burglary and which discharged appellee....
...It requested disposition of a charge of escape which was alleged to be the subject of a detainer placed with Virginia by Pinellas County authorities. August 1, 1980: Florida requested temporary custody of appellee from Virginia for the purpose of granting appellee a speedy trial pursuant to section 941.45....
...The record is then silent until March 10, 1981, when the public defender of the Sixth *169 Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, on behalf of appellee, filed a motion to dismiss and motion to discharge the burglary charge pending against appellee. This appeal is from the order granting that motion. We reverse. Section 941.45(3) requires a requesting state to bring a prisoner requesting final disposition to trial 180 days after the state receives notice of such request....
...The record does not reveal the date Florida received appellee's notice though it obviously was between July 22, 1980, when Virginia received it, and August 1, 1980, when Florida made its request for temporary custody of appellee. We conclude that the 180-day period was tolled, pursuant to section 941.45(6), during the time appellee was in the custody of New Mexico authorities and unavailable to stand trial on the Florida charge. State v. Wood, 241 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 1976). The record does not reveal how long appellee was in New Mexico. However, inasmuch as section 941.45(6) provides that the Florida court, the court having jurisdiction of the matter, is to determine when and for how long the time is tolled by a prisoner's not being available for trial, the Florida courts would not have been required to...
...We decline to apply the conclusion of the court in United States v. Mason to this cause and require Florida to "chase" appellee to a third state where, as in this case, the sending state (Virginia) had agreed to notify the receiving state (Florida) when appellee was returned. As a matter of fact, section 941.45(5)(d) and (e) seems to contemplate in a three-state situation that a prisoner in temporary custody of one "receiving" state for the purpose of disposition of pending charges in that state would not be subject to transfer to any other "receiving" or "requesting" state, as those subsections require that upon completion of prosecution in the first state the prisoner must be returned to the "sending" state. Some further confusion is created by the statute because section 941.45(3)(a) provides that after receipt of a request by a prisoner, a receiving state desiring to prosecute must bring the prisoner to trial within 180 days of the date of receipt of the notice; yet section 941.45(4)(c) seems to contemplate that after a state has complied with the request and made demand for delivery of the prisoner, it then has 120 days from the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state to begin the trial. Section 941.45(5)(c) then provides that if a receiving state refuses to accept temporary custody of the prisoner or accepting custody does not commence trial, then the information on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged shall be dismissed within the period of 180 days as provided in section 941.45(3) or 120 days from receipt of the prisoner as provided in section 941.45(4)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Shewan appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery. Prior to entering his nolo contendere plea to the robbery charge, he reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion for discharge because of lapse of the speedy trial time set forth in section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1977)....
...eptember 15, 1978. On November 21, 1978, a federal prison official wrote to the assistant state attorney in Orlando reminding him that Shewan had requested a final disposition of the state charges against him on August 23, 1978, and that pursuant to section 941.45(3) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, [2] Shewan had to be brought to trial within 180 days of the time his request was delivered to the appropriate officials....
...on January 18, 1979. The court granted the motion for continuance and reset the trial for February 6, 1979. On February 8, 1979 Shewan moved for discharge, which the court denied and on February 13, 1979 he entered his nolo plea. Shewan argues that section 941.45(4)(c) sets a 120 day period within which a prisoner confined in another state, or in the federal prison, must be brought to trial, after the state has obtained custody of the prisoner....
...The time periods established by this section shall commence when such person is taken into custody as a result of the conduct or criminal episode giving rise to the crime charged. (Emphasis supplied). If this case involved only those two provisions, we would be required to determine whether or not section
941.45(4)(c) is constitutional, and whether or not the time periods established by the rule and statute are "substantive" or "procedural." State v. Golden,
350 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1976). In this case, however, Shewan initiated the proceedings in the state court by requesting a "final disposition" of the information filed against him, pursuant to section
941.45(3)(a)....
...ON MOTION FOR REHEARING SHARP, Judge. In connection with a motion for rehearing, Shewan supplemented the record, at our direction, to establish that the State of Florida, rather than Shewan, initiated the trial proceedings in the state court pursuant to section 941.45(4) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Our prior opinion was premised on the assumption that Shewan requested the commencement of the state proceedings pursuant to section 941.45(3) of the Act....
...Shewan moved for discharge on February 8, 1979, and the trial court denied his motion. He then entered a nolo contendere plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion for discharge. There is a conflict in this case between application of the time periods established by section 941.45(4) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act [120 days after Florida *1135 obtained custody of Shewan] and Florida's speedy trial rule 3.191(b)(3) [6 months after proper service of the prisoner's demand to be brought to trial]. The speedy trial rule time runs only from the prisoner's demand for trial, and there is no comparable provision to section 941.45(4) for state authorities triggering a shorter trial time....
...He shall be transferred to the custody of the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, or such other federal authorities as may be appropriate. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. NOTES [1] The information was amended on September 7, 1978. [2] § 941.45, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Turner,
376 So.2d 1225 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), the state had violated appellee's rights by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to appellee's request of September 12, 1978 for final disposition of the warrant within one hundred eighty days as required by section
941.45(3)(a) Florida Statutes....
...it does reflect that Georgia agreed to notify Florida thirty days in advance of appellee's release to enable Florida to arrange to take custody. The record is also silent as to whether Florida requested the return of appellee prior to his discharge. Section 941.45, Florida Statutes, encourages the expeditious and orderly disposition of charges based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. This section does not state that it covers charges concerning probation violations or parole revocations. However, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that probationers were within the coverage of section 941.45 because untried charges may obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation....
...o send the Parole Commission to where he is incarcerated for a revocation hearing. Such factors are also present in a probation matter. However, we conclude that the supreme court considered these factors and rejected them in Hofmann v. Wainwright . Section 941.45 was enacted in 1973, well before Hofmann which was decided in 1976....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 120785
...Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. An arrest warrant is not an "untried indictment, information or complaint" so as to trigger compliance with section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1989), the Interstate Agreement on Detainers statute....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2256
...speedy trial provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). We reverse. While Butler was imprisoned in Ohio a Florida detainer was lodged against him. Butler filed the necessary forms pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, §§ 941.45 ff., Fla....
...The first and foremost consideration is that Butler had been released from Ohio's custody on January 20, before the expiration of the 180 day period. The IAD was enacted to provide certainty and prevent obstruction in "programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation." § 941.45(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 19567
...a plea of nolo contendere. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that his right to a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45, Florida Statutes, was violated. The record shows that, although appellant did demand speedy trial pursuant to the statute, contrary to the requirement of section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes, the appropriate Florida prosecuting officer did not receive any notice of his demand for several months due to a failure on the part of the prison officials in the state of Pennsylvania, where appellant was incarcerated at the time....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...e and effect and should be disregarded by the Florida Department of Corrections, because of Kentucky's failure to return him to that state for disposition of the parole violation charge under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), Sections 941.45-.50, Florida Statutes (1949)....
...es" which have joined in the amendment. Kentucky Revised Statutes, Section 440.455(1). [4] Florida has not adopted the amendment. Thus, Florida's IAD today applies, as in its original form, only to "untried indictments, informations, or complaints." Section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...We observe that the record before us does not disclose the reasons, if any, given by Kentucky for its failure to respond to petitioner's request for disposition of his parole detainer. Petitioner alleges his full compliance with the requirements of Section 941.45(3), "Request For Final Disposition" (Form Two), and further alleges that the superintendent of the prison where he is incarcerated executed the "Offer To Deliver Temporary Custody" (Form Four), in compliance with the act, Section 941.45(5)....
...way impinges upon petitioner's right to seek a dismissal of the parole revocation charge by appropriate court action filed in Kentucky. If successful there, the detainer lodged with the Florida authorities "shall cease to be of any force or effect." Section 941.45(5)(c)....
...I would conclude that the Kentucky IAD amendment with respect to detainers for parole or probation revocation is simply declaratory of the intent and effect of the language of the uniform law as adopted in Florida, which encompasses detainers based on complaints generally as well as indictment or information. § 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes....
...Our decision in Maggard's case is that the IAD does not "apply" so as to require Florida to disregard a Kentucky detainer based on a parole violation because of Kentucky's failure to return him to Kentucky upon his request for disposition of the detainer under Section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes, IAD....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Jones's appeal questions the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain any prosecution *805 against him other than for the crime of grand theft, the crime which was the basis for the detainer by means of which Florida had him returned from Kentucky. He contends that the Florida Statute, Section 941.45(5)(d) (1979), [1] limits the jurisdiction of the trial court, so that, since he was returned to Florida only for the purpose of facing prosecution for grand theft, the trial court had no jurisdiction to revoke his probation and sentence him on a charge of uttering a forgery....
...jurisdiction forcibly, and without any legal process whatever. (
148 U.S. at 545,
13 S.Ct. at 690). Camp v. United States,
587 F.2d 397 (8th Cir.1978), [2] dealing with a provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act comparable to Florida's Section
941.45(4)(e), held that the provisions of the act did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, stating that the interstate agreement on detainers amounts to nothing more than a statutory set of procedural rules which clearly do not rise t...
...o with preserving a fair trial, but are instead intended only to prevent excessive interference with a prisoner's rehabilitation in a state prison system. The order, judgment and sentence are affirmed. MILLS, C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 941.45(5)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), provides in part: "The temporary custody referred to in this Section shall be only for the purpose of permitting prosecution on the charge or charges contained in one or more untried indictments, informations, or complaints which form the basis of the detainer......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 786270
...Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Fred Haddad of Haddad & Hester, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. STONE, J. We reverse an order granting Appellee's motion to dismiss on the ground that his right to a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes, was violated....
...was not accompanied by the required certifications of the official having custody over Appellee. The state further asserted that the IAD does not apply to persons awaiting transfer, housed in county jail prior to entry into the state prison system. Section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes, the IAD, provides for disposition of charges pending against a prisoner in another jurisdiction: (3) REQUEST FOR FINAL DISPOSITION (a) Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correc...
...having custody of the prisoner, who shall promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Substantial compliance with the requirements of section 941.45(3) is sufficient to invoke the benefits of the IAD....
...n his failure of strict compliance will not deprive him of its benefits." Id. at 790(emphasis added)(quoting State ex rel. Saxton v. Moore, 598 S.W.2d 586, 590 (Mo.Ct.App. 1980)). We conclude that Appellee's request did not substantially comply with section 941.45(3) because it was sent by Appellee and was not accompanied by a certificate of the prison official holding him in custody....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Detainers had previously been placed against appellee by both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. The Broward County charges were disposed of in due course. Subsequently, appellee was paroled from federal custody and extradited to Palm Beach County for trial on pending charges. The trial court held that under Section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1981) (a section of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers), once a request for final disposition is made it is the duty of the state to treat it as a request for final disposition of all charges pending against appellee for which detainers have *622 been filed....
...nd construction. The statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning... . [and a] [c]onstruction of a statute which would lead to an absurd result should be avoided. Winter v. Playa del Sol, Inc.,
353 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Sections
941.45(3)(d) and
941.45(4)(b) & (e), Florida Statutes (1981), rather clearly provide for notice to those jurisdictions within the state which have filed detainers against the prisoner either when the prisoner requests final disposition or when the state attorney's office requests custody or availability of the prisoner....
...te the prisoner) it would be inimical to permit the shuffling of a prisoner between federal prison and the numerous counties of a particular state. We therefore hold that dismissal of the charges would have been mandated by the application of either Section 941.45(3)(d) or Section 941.45(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1981) and we accordingly affirm the dismissal....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...*1122 Michael Allen, Public Defender, Nancy A. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. MILLS, Judge. Williams appeals, contending that he was entitled to a discharge pursuant to Section 941.45(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...ida, Williams escaped. His flight took him first to Marion County where he committed various crimes and then to the State of New York where he was arrested on 15 February 1977 in connection with offenses he committed while in that state. Pursuant to Section 941.45(4), Florida Statutes (1977), Marion County filed a request for temporary custody with the State of New York....
...s against him on the escape charge. Williams then filed a motion for discharge which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, he maintains that he was available for trial in December 1977 when he was in Marion County, that the 120-day time limit of Section 941.45(4)(c) has run, and that he is now entitled to a discharge on the escape offense. It is clear that the New York authorities failed to give notice to Union County that Williams was being brought to Florida as required by the last sentence of Section 941.45(4)(b). Subsection (c) of Section 941.45(4) states that "[i]n respect of any proceeding made possible by this subsection, trial shall be commenced within 120 days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 254127
...CASANUEVA, Judge. The State of Florida appeals the discharge of the defendant, Daniel Garza, on speedy trial grounds. This case presents the issue of the interplay between Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1999) (IAD)....
...Garza into the custody of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office on April 6, 2000. After a flurry of unsuccessful pretrial motions, including premature motions for discharge on rule 3.191 speedy trial grounds, [2] defense counsel, *792 on August 16, 2000, filed a notice of violation of section 941.45, claiming that the IAD's speedy trial protection had been denied Mr. Garza. The circuit court then set trial for August 21, 2000. Before trial began on August 21, the court heard Mr. Garza's discharge motion based on section 941.45 grounds, granted it, and discharged him....
...k. Mr. Garza's case is complicated by the fact that his defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney argued before the circuit court that different speedy trial clocks were ticking. Although we find that the circuit court erred in the way it applied section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1999), the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, we note that the result would be the same if the case were based only on a violation of the rule instead....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 367854
...We do not find this to be an inappropriate burden. Nor do we find it to be an unreasonable burden given the ability of the state to obtain a defendant from the custody of either another state or the federal authorities pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. See § 941.45, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2715
...SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. The defendant's sole contention, preserved through the entry of a nolo plea, is that he is entitled to dismissal because he was not scheduled for trial within the 120 day period provided by Article IV(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 941.45(4)(c), Fla....
...omplain. [2] Foran v. Metz,
463 F. Supp. 1088 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), aff'd mem.
603 F.2d 212 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied,
444 U.S. 830,
100 S.Ct. 58,
62 L.Ed.2d 38 (1979); Pethtel v. State, 427 N.E.2d 891, 893-95 (Ind. App. 1981). Affirmed. NOTES [1] Sec.
941.45(4)(c) provides: (c) In respect of any proceeding made possible by this subsection, trial shall be commenced within 120 days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his coun...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...to Request for Final Disposition and Request for Temporary Custody." In due course, the matter was heard by the trial court and the motion to dismiss was granted. We reverse. Under the interstate compact known as the Agreement on Detainers, Sections 941.45-50, Florida Statutes (1983), a person incarcerated in another state and also charged by information with a Florida crime for which a detainer has been lodged with his custodian, may deliver to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court a w...
...Appellee purports to have initiated the running of the speedy trial time by virtue of his above described motion and the State's response, relying upon State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), which holds that substantial compliance with the requirements contained in Section
941.45(3) is sufficient to trigger the speedy trial aspect of the compact. While we agree with the principle of substantial compliance contained in Roberts, we hold that appellee failed to meet even the substantial compliance test; his motion was inadequate to provide the information required by Section
941.45(3)(a and b)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Appellee's motion for discharge was filed and granted on June 1, the court finding that he had been in custody for more than 120 days. Because the state initiated the procedure against appellee by transmitting to the Federal Institution a request for custody pursuant to section 941.45(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), the state was required to commence trial within 120 days after arrival of the prisoner. Section 941.45(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979)....
...This period expired on May 13, 1981, and appellee would ordinarily be entitled to discharge after that date if trial had not commenced. We hold that the lower court erred in finding that appellee was able to stand trial for the entire 120-day period. Section 941.45(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) provides: In determining the duration and expiration dates of the time periods provided in subsections (3) and (4), the running of said time periods shall be tolled whenever and for as long as the prisone...
...During the time period when appellee was required by federal authorities to return to give testimony and the later delay when federal marshals transported appellee back to the Federal Correctional Institution, appellee was unable to stand trial in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court. Thus, the tolling provisions of section 941.45(6)(a) came into effect, and the 120-day period specified by section 941.45(4)(c) was extended....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 762
...At this time the state attorney's office declined to extradite the defendant for trial on the 1984 charges. Subsequently, 21 months later, in December 1988, the defendant moved for extradition to Florida pursuant to the Florida Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, § 941.45 Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...him. The appellant is currently a prisoner at Avon Park Correctional Institution. He was informed on December 12, 1980, that the State of Missouri had lodged a detainer against him for a parole violation. On November 6, 1981, appellant, pursuant to section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1981), submitted to the State of Missouri the proper documents necessary to invoke his right to a final disposition of outstanding charges under the detainer....
...isposition of the charges. The lower court concluded that appellant was not entitled to any relief. In Gaddy v. Turner,
376 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), this court held that the speedy trial provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, section
941.45, Florida Statutes (1977), were applicable to an affidavit charging a probation violation....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1513, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8865
...The state appeals from an order discharging Edwards from prosecution. The trial court's ruling was based on the state’s failure to bring Edwards to trial within 180 days after September 18, 1985, the date Edwards made his demand for disposition of the charges against him under section 941.45(3)(b) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD)....
...On April 7,1986, the public defender filed a motion to discharge. Other than standing silent and not objecting to the trial date, Edwards and his attorney did nothing which can be construed as a waiver of the IAD speedy trial provisions. The 180-day period ran on March 21, 1986. This case is governed by section 941.45(3)(a), one of two speedy trial provisions contained in the Interstate Agree *1163 ment on Detainers (“IAD”)....
...A defendant has no duty to remind the state of its obligation to try him in a timely manner. Ultimately it is the state’s responsibility once the IAD speedy trial mechanisms are triggered. Accordingly, we affirm on the authority of Brown v. Wolff,
706 F.2d 902 (9th Cir.1983). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . Section
941.45(3)(a) provides that where, as here, an incarcerated defendant makes a demand for disposition, he must be tried within 180 days; and section
941.45(4) provides that a defendant must be tried within 120 days after the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for armed robbery entered by the Circuit Court for Orange County. Appellant moved to dismiss the information pursuant to the interstate agreement on detainers (re: speedy trial) defined in section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...suant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. [1] "Detainers" are often used when a person accused of a crime in one state is already in custody in another. The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, to which Florida became a party by its enactment of section 941.45 Florida Statutes (1979), had as its purpose the development of a uniform procedure among the several states and the protection of prisoners from those practices discussed in United States v....
...Turner,
376 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The record clearly shows appellant was not brought to trial within 180 days after the required notice was received by the State Attorney and the appropriate court as required by the statute. Appellee contends that section
941.45 conflicts with Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and therefore is unconstitutional....
...stablished by this section shall commence when such person is taken into custody as a result of the conduct or criminal episode giving rise to the crime charged. Appellant contends there is no material conflict between the rule and the statute. *740 Section 941.45(3)(a) is analogous to the provisions of Rule 3.191(b)(3) insofar as they both cover instances where a prisoner outside the jurisdiction of Florida courts can request a speedy trial on charges arising in Florida....
...this appeal and cannot therefore be said to present a justiciable issue. We therefore hold that appellant's motion to dismiss should have been granted. We REVERSE and REMAND for discharge of appellant. DAUKSCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 941.45, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...If the acts required under this section do not precede the filing of the demand, then the demand is invalid and shall be stricken upon motion of the prosecuting attorney. Nothing hereinabove stated shall affect a prisoner's right to speedy trial under section 941.45-941.50, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1146717
...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Michael D. Gee petitions for a writ of prohibition, contending that his right to a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45, Florida Statutes, (IAD) was violated....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2535259
...Anthony Monroe, who is currently serving a 100-month sentence in a federal prison, sought a final disposition of charges pending against him in the State of Florida by filing a request for final disposition pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), codified as section 941.45, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...es pending against him in another jurisdiction, "provided that, for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or the prisoner's counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance." § 941.45....
...As a result, the Florida Supreme Court held the trial court properly denied the motion for discharge, even though the trial occurred outside of the time frame required by the IADA. This court has applied Vining in Garza,
807 So.2d 790. In Garza, the defendant filed a "notice of violation of section
941.45, claiming that the IAD[A]'s speedy trial protection had been denied Mr....
...ndant or the court, shall be forever discharged from the crime." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3). Mr. Monroe, through no fault of his own, was not brought to trial in accordance with the provisions of rule 3.191(p). Mr. Monroe established a violation of section 941.45, article III(a), one that occurred well before any action that might imply a waiver of the protections of the Act....
...[5] This interpretation is consistent with Florida cases that have applied the IADA to circumstances governed by both articles III and IV. Compare State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ("As Roberts was not brought to Florida until July 15, 1981, more than 180 days after section
941.45 was invoked, the circuit court's dismissal of the two informations was proper."), with State v. Ivey,
410 So.2d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ("Because the state initiated the procedure against appellee by transmitting to the Federal Institution a request for custody pursuant to section
941.45(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), the state was required to commence trial within 120 days after arrival of the prisoner.")....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 627517
...Carl Clark appeals the denial of his postconviction motion in which he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because the record does not conclusively refute his allegations, we reverse. While in federal custody, Clark initiated procedures under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (hereafter IAD). § 941.45, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 320133
...s as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p)(3). He contends specifically that the court erred by failing to discharge him based upon the failure of appellee, state, to bring him to trial within the time periods set forth in sections 941.45(3)(a) & (4)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), otherwise known as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), which provides in pertinent part the following: ARTICLE III Request for Final Disposition (a) Whenever a person has entered upon a term of...
...risoner's counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. Failure to comply with the foregoing time periods warrants a dismissal of the charges against a defendant with prejudice. § 941.45(5)(c), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 72175
...Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Elizabeth C. Masters, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. While petitioner was incarcerated in Georgia, the state of Florida filed a detainer against him, and petitioner allegedly filed a request for disposition pursuant to section 941.45 Fla....
...As the state acknowledges in its response, the trial court's reason for denying the motion for discharge is insufficient. While petitioner may have waived his right to speedy trial under the applicable rule of criminal procedure by failing to appear, such conduct did not waive his rights under the detainer act. Section 941.45 Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee. OTT, Chief Judge. The state appeals from the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for discharge for noncompliance with the speedy trial provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...d. Defendant was returned to Maryland shortly thereafter. This appeal ensued. Defendant contends that the appeal is moot, arguing that the information must be dismissed with prejudice notwithstanding the speedy trial issue because the state violated section 941.45(4)(e). The anti-shuffling provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45(4)(e), provides: If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (e) of subsection (5), such indict...
...3d 160. In the instant case, defendant was returned to Maryland before a trial was had in this jurisdiction. No express or implied waiver of the anti-shuffling provision appears in the lower court record. Accordingly, we hold that the state violated section 941.45(4)(e) by returning defendant to Maryland prior to trial and such violation requires dismissal of the information with prejudice. Since reversal of the trial court's order discharging defendant on the speedy trial issue would accomplish nothing in light of defendant's return to Maryland in violation of section 941.45(4)(e), we will not address the merits of the issue raised by the state and dismiss the appeal as moot....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 81555
...SMITH, Chief Judge. The state appeals the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure of the state to bring defendant to trial within 180 days as required under the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), sections 941.45-941.50, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...The trial court's finding that defendant substantially complied with the statute is supported by the evidence and we affirm. State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We write only to address the state's contention *350 that the defendant's pro se demand for disposition of the charges against him, under section
941.45(3)(a), was ineffective to start the time running under that statute because he was simultaneously represented by counsel, who should have filed the demand....
...s for speedy trial were considered spurious, and in opposition to representation by their attorneys. Hence, the speedy trial demands were declared invalid under the rule. We note, however, some important differences in the purposes of Rule 3.191 and section 941.45(3)(a), and in the effect of invocation of their provisions by the prisoner....
...Under the latter, the prisoner must be brought to trial within 180 days after he has caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition of the charges against him. There is no requirement under section 941.45(3)(a) (as there is in Rule 3.191) that the defendant shall have diligently prepared for trial, or that he be prepared for trial within a date certain, or that his demand is subject to being stricken for failure to comply with these requirements....
...case, and that he is prepared for trial within five days. A demand filed by an accused who has not diligently investigated his case or who has not timely prepared for trial shall be stricken as invalid upon motion by the prosecuting attorney ... [2] Section 941.45(6), provides that the time period provided for in the statute shall be tolled whenever and for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial as determined by the court having jurisdiction of the matter. [3] Request for final disposition under the IAD is initiated by "the prisoner," section 941.45(3)(a); the written notice and request "shall be given or sent by the prisoner to the warden ... having custody of him ... who shall promptly forward it ... to the appropriate prosecuting official and court ...," section 941.45(3)(b); and the warden shall inform the prisoner of any detainer lodged against him, and shall also "inform him of his right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment ...," section 941.45(3)(c).
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14077, 2010 WL 3655540
...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Taylor v. State,
582 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ("An arrest warrant is not an `untried indictment, information or complaint' so as to trigger compliance with section
941.45, Florida Statutes (1989), the Interstate Agreement on Detainers statute.")....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2806436
...PER CURIAM. Michael Halle ["Halle"] seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent his further prosecution in case no. 2002-1144-CF pending in Hernando County, based on the so-called "anti-shuttling" provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ["IAD"], section 941.45, Art....
...detailed in the statute. We disagree and issue the writ. It is undisputed that on August 20, 2004, Halle was transported from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Florida pursuant to his request for final disposition of all untried cases in Florida. § 941.45, Art....
...For some reason not apparent on the record, Halle was sent back to confinement in Massachusetts without disposition of the Hernando County charges. Under the IAD, the return of Halle to Massachusetts without disposition of the Hernando County case mandates its dismissal. § 941.45, Art....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12619, 2015 WL 4946409
...prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner. § 941.45, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12559, 2001 WL 1045041
...These are facially sufficient claims and must be addressed on their merits. See Espinosa v. State,
759 So.2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Phillips also asserts that his attorney was ineffective because he did not seek to enforce the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section
941.45, Florida Statutes (1999)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13344
...soner of the source and contents of any detainer lodged against him or her and shall also inform the prisoner of his or her right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment, information, or complaint on which the detainer is based.” § 941.45(Art, III)(c), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12922, 2010 WL 3446170
...Parks argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for discharge, which was based on the State's failure to bring him to trial within 180 days, following his request for final disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ["IADA"], Section 941.45(a), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...and how the State would like to proceed." The State filed a response to the show cause order, arguing that Parks failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the IADA because he failed to follow the statutorily prescribed procedure under section 941.45, Article III(a)....
...The trial court then entered a second order to show cause: The Court issued an Order to Show Cause to the State requesting the State respond to whether the Defendant had substantially complied with the requirements of the IAD. The State replied that the Defendant had not substantially complied with § 941.45, Fla....
...had to bring him to trial. We do not address the waiver issue because we agree with the *861 State that Parks' December 2004 request for final disposition does not substantially comply with the IADA requirements for a Request for Final Disposition. Section 941.45, Florida Statutes, entitled "Interstate Agreement on Detainers," provides in part: ARTICLE III Request for Final Disposition (a) Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a part...
...other official having custody of the prisoner, who shall promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. According to the express terms of section 941.45, in addition to written notice of the place where Parks was imprisoned and Parks' request for final disposition, the State and the trial court also had to be provided with "a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of ......
...ather than an appropriate official, forwarded the request, no certificate of an appropriate Oklahoma official was provided, the submittal was incomplete and there was no offer to deliver custody. Florida courts agree that substantial compliance with section
941.45(a) is sufficient. See State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ("substantial compliance with section
941.45(3) *862 will enable a defendant to seek relief under... [the IADA]"); Fay,
763 So.2d at 475 ("[s]ubstantial compliance with the requirements of section
941.45(3) is sufficient to invoke the benefits of the IAD"); see also Halle v....
...In Roberts, the defendant, rather than corrections officials, had sent documents that did not include a certificate of inmate status.
427 So.2d at 789. The Second District Court of Appeal found that the defendant had nevertheless "substantially complied" with section
941.45(3). The Roberts court explained: In the case sub judice, Roberts substantially complied with section
941.45(3) by sending the documents which were received by the state attorney's office on December 15, 1980....
...This time period was not tolled by the August 1981 motion by Roberts for continuance; the time limit had already expired. Id. at 790 (emphasis added). More recently, in Fay, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the defendant did not substantially comply with section 941.45(3), explaining: We conclude that Appellee's request did not substantially comply with section 941.45(3) because it was sent by Appellee and was not accompanied by a certificate of the prison official holding him in custody....
...ed by the statute). See also Torres-Arboledo v. State,
524 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1988); Coit v. State,
440 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
763 So.2d at 475. [1] In this case, Appellant's submission did not substantially comply with the requirements *863 of section
941.45(a). The expressly stated purpose of the IADA is to encourage the orderly and expeditious disposition of outstanding charges and to eliminate uncertainty. §
941.45 (Article I), Fla....
...nd of post hoc debates over whether a plainly non-compliant submittal was nevertheless "substantial enough" to prevent prosecution of serious crimesin this case, homicide that we face today. Given the ease with which satisfactory compliance with section 941.45 can be met and the importance of doing so, we are unwilling to say that merely putting Marion County authorities on notice of his wishes with a defective Request for Final Disposition is enough....
...ctual notice of his IAD disposition request, and that both took steps toward disposing of the case. See Torres-Arboledo v. State,
524 So.2d 403 (Fla.1988); State v. Roberts,
427 So.2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Id. at 471-72. Halle, however, involved a section
941.45(d) issue....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16371, 2006 WL 2787527
LaROSE, Judge. We affirm the order of the trial court because Mr. Candelaria did not comply substantially with the requirements of section 941.45, Florida Statutes (2005)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17175
...March 6,1979 Motions denied. April 18,1979 Hearing — appellant entered conditional nolo plea. At the time of appellant’s demands for speedy trial, appellant was serving an eleven year sentence in Maryland. The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that when a detainer has been lodged against a prisoner in another state: [H]e shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty (180) days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the pr...
...The letter of May 4, 1978, failed to state the place of incarceration, nature and term of sentence, tentative expiration date and the date of the charge in Orange County. The envelope which was not made a part of the record allegedly contained the place of incarceration. Section 941.45, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, provides that the prisoner must send written notice of his place of imprisonment to the prosecuting officer....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13431, 2010 WL 3515570
...rial rule does not afford him any relief. 1 However, Walker alleges that he is entitled to relief *916 under the speedy trial provision in the United States and Florida Constitutions, and under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”), section 941.45, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C....
...Walker’s filing with the trial court addressed only the first element, length of delay. As such, he could not establish a constitutional speedy trial violation. Id. We also note that the IADA provides a method through which Walker can secure a timely resolution of the charges against him. See § 941.45, Fla....
...A prisoner seeking to use the Act to secure the disposition of charges must ”cause[] 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....” § 941.45, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2215, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10210
...and cannot be, breached until sentences are imposed in Texas and New Jersey and the defendant has not alleged that has yet occurred. If a defendant wants that done his remedy is provided by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers set forth in sections 941.45-941.-50, Florida Statutes, and particularly section 941.45(3)(a) which permits the defendant to request final disposition in a foreign state on any charges which are there pending and are the subject of a detainer upon him....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21565
...The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. Involved here is a denial by the trial court of petitioner’s motion for discharge. Petitioner was initially returned to Florida pursuant to a request for custody made through the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Sections
941.45 to
941.50, Florida Statutes (1979). Under Section
941.45(4)(c) petitioner was entitled to be tried within 120 days of his arrival in Florida....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7801, 1993 WL 188887
...Kramer's only authority, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, provides that the custody of federal prisoners in a receiving state shall be effected by whichever custodial agreement may be approved by the custodian. 18 U.S.C.App. II § 2. See also Fla. Stat.Ann. § 941.45 (West Ann.1985 & Supp....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19665
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge. The State established by adequate proof that the defendant, a prisoner in Colorado who had requested final disposition of a detainer resulting from pending Florida charges, see Section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1979), did within 180 days of his request evince his unwillingness to waive extradition....
...We hold that the defendant’s subsequent insistence on his right not to be returned to Florida without a full and com-píete extradition hearing was an effective revocation of his earlier waiver of extradition 1 and deprived him of any right to be tried within 180 days of his request under Section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(b)(3) (1979), see O’Bryan v....
...State,
340 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied,
348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). See Williams v. State,
110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for a new trial. . A request for final disposition is deemed to be a waiver of extradition. §
941.45(3)(e), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 775, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12063
...Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the discharge of certain detain-ers filed against her, because more than 180 days elapsed from the date of filing her demand for speedy trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, as authorized by section 941.45(3)(a) Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20224
...th robbery. Subsequent to filing the information, the state attorney in Orange County sent the warden of the State Prison of Southern Michigan a request for temporary custody of O’Connell pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, sections 941.45- 50, Florida Statutes (1979). As a result of the request for temporary custody, O’Connell was sent to Florida to face the robbery charge. Through no fault of his own, O’Connell was not tried within the time period set by the agreement. 1 Pursuant to section 941.45(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), the dismissal provision of the agreement, O’Connell moved to dismiss the information....
...mposition of costs, are reversed, and the trial court is instructed to enter an order discharging the information against O’Connell with prejudice. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . § 941.45(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979). . Section 941.45(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that the appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried information is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer made available upon written...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13613
...Distiso, a prisoner incarcerated in DeSoto Correctional Institute, appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We reverse. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requested temporary custody of Distiso pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on De-tainers, section 941.45-.50, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...es were pending against appellant in Pennsylvania, and that appellant correctly had been identified as the individual sought. We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the documents relied upon by the requesting state were “in order.” Section 941.45(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1983), obligates the state accepting an offer of temporary custody to furnish upon demand “[a] duly certified copy of the indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lod...
...We note, of course, that Pennsylvania easily can correct this deficiency in subsequent proceedings; our decision in no way prejudices the *990 state’s ability to gain temporary custody of Distiso by submitting a new request and, upon demand, presenting proper documentation under section 941.45(5)(b)2....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8480, 2000 WL 900120
PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to Jose G. Guerrero filing a request for final disposition pursuant to section 941.45, article III, Florida Statutes (1999)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4378
affect a prisoner’s right to speedy trial under section
941.45-941.50, Florida Statutes (1979).] [(b)(2)
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20518
disposition of the pending charges pursuant to Section
941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes. No reply was received
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18899
concur. WENTWORTH, J., concurs specially. . Section
941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), requires trial
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 993, 1995 WL 49264
...computer.” Appellant based his petition upon the assertion that, despite his request for final disposition as contemplated by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, the State of Colorado had failed timely to bring him to trial. Both Florida and Colorado are participants in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See § 941.45, Fla.Stat....
...It appears that, pursuant to article V(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, the proper forum for the relief appellant requests is “the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information, or complaint has been pending” — i.e., Colorado. See § 941.45, art....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 773119, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223
...lengthy absence from a jurisdiction in connection with outstanding charges. To counter these problems, the IADA encourages the expeditious and orderly disposition of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations or complaints. See § 941.45(1), Fla....
...n omitted). Under the IADA, a prisoner must be brought to trial within 180 days of his request for a final disposition of charges to the extent he has entered upon “a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state.” § 941.45(III)(a), Fla....
...as those terms are used in Article III of the IADA. Federal law governs the interpretation of the IADA, State v. Edwards,
509 So.2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), which states it is to be “liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes.” §
941.45(IX), Fla....
...Nevertheless, we believe the end result is the same. Article III of the IADA is clear that in order for a defendant to avail himself of the provision for speedy trial disposition, he must first be incarcerated in a state penal or correctional institution. See § 941.45(III)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 433, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 535, 1988 WL 8378
COBB, Judge. Kenneth Sharp appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of escape, based on the state’s failure to comply with section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1985). 1 Sharp’s contention that section 941.45 applies to him is patently without merit....
...request for custody of Sharp was ever presented to Kansas or that such request was ever “approved, recorded, and transmitted” by a Florida court. The trial court correctly denied Sharp’s motion to dismiss, since the requirements of section *53 941.45(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), do not apply to Sharp....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2657, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5398, 1988 WL 129540
COWART, Judge. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss criminal charges alleging that while incarcerated in a foreign state pursuant to section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes, he sent a letter notifying the assistant state attorney of his request for a final disposition of the charges in Florida and that the time limits contained in said statute having expired, the defendant was entitled, pursuant to section 941.45(4)(e), to have the charges dismissed....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17753
under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 941.-45 et seq., Florida Statutes. By letter dated
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12619, 1993 WL 535962
...of a dwelling charge, Seg-roves requested the warden sign a notice of final disposition. The warden signed the notice on 19 October 1990. Since Georgia and Florida have adopted the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), provisions of sections 941.45 et seq., Florida Statutes, apply....
...rtment of Corrections with credit for time served. See § 775.-087(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). His sentence was to run concurrently with any sentence previously imposed. Segroves only appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss. He argues that pursuant to section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1991), he was denied a speedy trial....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 89, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11684, 1987 WL 3031
...Appellant was subsequently arrested by federal authorities on an unrelated matter on April 13, 1983, in Ohio. On June 14, 1983, appellant, believing that a detainer had been lodged against him by the Florida court, sent a handwritten letter to the Florida State Attorney’s Office, requesting a final disposition pursuant to section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1985) (Interstate Agreement on Detainers)....
...nsaction, participated in the crime, and his testimony was necessary to appellant’s defense of entrapment. Said motion was ultimately denied by the court following a hearing. On February 25, 1986, appellant filed a motion for discharge pursuant to section 941.45, alleging that he had made a request for final disposition on June 14,1983, which should have invoked his right to trial within 180 days from the date that the detainer *606 was lodged against him on August 28, 1985....
...a capias was processed, and the same bond carried over on the new information. Thereafter, he was arraigned under this new information and a trial date was set. Next, appellant contends error was committed in denial of the motion for discharge under section 941.45, or under his sixth amendment right to speedy trial....
...In support of this point appellant argues that, while incarcerated in federal prison in 1983, he sent a letter to the State Attorney in Broward County requesting final disposition of the pending criminal prosecution. This triggered the speedy trial time of 180 days according to appellant. However, use of section 941.45(3), Florida Statutes (1985), was not then available to appellant because Florida had not yet lodged a detainer with the Ohio authorities....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12454, 1994 WL 708171
...On this date, Schuhart filed a demand for speedy trial with the state attorney’s office in Brevard County. The state then had 180 days to try him for the 1988 crimes. See Fex v. Michigan, — U.S. —, —,
113 S.Ct. 1085, 1091 ,
122 L.Ed.2d 406 (1993); §
941.45(3)(2), Fla.Stat....
...There are 46 states that are members of the IAD. The purpose of the IAD is “to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of ... charges and [make a] determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints.” § 941.45(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). The IAD ensures that prisoners get speedy trials by requiring that prisoners be tried within 180 days of the prosecuting authority being notified of a prisoner’s request for formal disposition, in this case, a trial. § 941.45(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). The IAD also has an additional time period to mandate compliance with speedy trial mandates. § 941.45(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). Once a prisoner has been brought to the state where the prisoner is to be tried, the receiving state has 120 days to try the prisoner. § 941.45(4)(c), Fla.Stat....
...The state presented adequate facts to support its motion to continue. We affirm the denial of the motion for discharge. AFFIRMED. GOSHORN and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . §
831.02, Fla.Stat. (1987). . §
831.01, Fla.Stat. (1987). . §
812.014(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). . §
843.15(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). . §§
941.45-941.50, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21841
the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, section
941.45, Florida Statutes (1979). Lorenzo was placed
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13469, 2013 WL 4483099
...Without stating its reasons, the court denied the motion to reconsider. It then imposed a prison sentence for the burglary conviction. On appeal, Devine argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. Chapter 941, part II, contains the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Section 941.45, article III, governs prisoners’ requests for final dispositions of charges pending in other states....
...prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner. § 941.45, art....
...(The Ohio officials, who were not parties to the Florida criminal case, understandably may have doubted their authorization to make a filing in the court file associated with the case.) Indeed, the IAD provides that its provisions are to be liberally construed, § 941.45, art....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Following a Faretta 3 hearing,
the trial court granted Appellant’s request of self-representation
with stand-by counsel.
When Appellant failed to appear for a hearing in Duval
County on January 5, 2022, the court issued a warrant for his
1 § 941.45, Fla....
...of a different jurisdiction. Monroe v. State,
978 So. 2d 177, 179
(Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Article I of the IAD notes that such untried
charges underlying detainers can interfere with programs and
treatments otherwise available to assist with rehabilitating the
prisoner. §
941.45(I), Fla....
...Article II(c) of the IAD) that has lodged a detainer against him,
Article III of the IAD permits the prisoner to initiate the process
3
by sending a formal written notice or request for transfer and
resolution of charges to the receiving state. Id. § 941.45(III)(a).
The IAD requires the prisoner to provide or send a written notice
and request for disposition to the warden or other corrections
official having custody over him....
...custody of the prisoner “shall promptly forward [the prisoner’s
written notice and request for final disposition] together with the
certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.” Id. §
941.45(III)(b)....
...Once the prisoner’s conforming notice has been
delivered to the prosecutor and appropriate court in the receiving
state, the IAD provides that the prisoner shall be brought to trial
in the receiving jurisdiction within 180 days, subject to any
continuances granted for good cause. Id. § 941.45(III)(a). If the
prisoner is not brought to trial within that time period, the
“indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further
force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing same
with prejudice.” Id. § 941.45(III)(d).
There is also a procedure available under Article IV of the IAD
for the receiving state, rather than the prisoner, to initiate the
process by requesting the prisoner to be transferred to its state for
trial. Id. § 941.45(IV)(a). When initiated by the state, trial must
be commenced within 120 days of the prisoner’s arrival in the
receiving state. Id. § 941.45(IV)(c).
Appellant’s IAD Paperwork
On September 15, 2022, Appellant prepared a formal, written,
signed, and witnessed IAD request for transfer and final
disposition using the appropriate IAD Form II, which was dir...
...The IAD is statutory and any request for transfer and final
disposition must comply with its requirements. However, Florida
has recognized that substantial compliance with the IAD is
sufficient. “The issue of strict versus substantial compliance with
the requirements of section 941.45(3)” was first specifically
addressed in Florida in State v....
...not substantially comply with the IAD.
9
The State acknowledges that it received copies of Appellant’s
formal request; however, it points out that the request was not
simultaneously served on the court as required by the IAD. See §
941.45(III)(b)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12956
PER CURIAM. The Florida Interstate Agreement on De-tainers Act (§§ 941.45-50, Fla.Stat.) ■ does not require that charges pending in Florida against a prisoner in a foreign state be dismissed for failure of the foreign prison officials to promptly notify the prisoner as to a Florida detainer or to assist him in delivering to the Florida state attorney and Florida court notice of his place of confinement and his request for trial under section 941.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)....
