Edell v. Blount, R--270
Decision Date | 21 September 1972 |
Docket Number | No. R--270,R--270 |
Citation | 267 So.2d 47 |
Parties | Dora Pino EDELL, Petitioner, v. Honorable Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., as Judge of the Felony Court of Record of Volusia County, Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking her discharge from custody pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.191, F.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A. We sua sponte treated the subject petition as a suggestion for writ of prohibition and issued rule nisi. We now have before us the respondent's return and supporting briefs filed by the parties.
The undisputed facts are: Petitioner was arrested on March 24, 1971; a preliminary hearing scheduled for April 5, 1971 was continued upon the motion of petitioner's attorney and rescheduled for June 28, 1971; preliminary hearing was again rescheduled upon motion by the State upon the ground of the unavailability of a witness for the State; the preliminary hearing was ultimately held on September 9, 1971, and petitioner was bound over for trial. On October 7, 1971, the State Attorney filed an information against petitioner charging her with the crime of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving personal injuries. Petitioner filed her motion for discharge more than 180 days subsequent to being taken into custody. The trial judge found 'that the delay in getting this matter to trial was caused by the Defendant and through no fault of the State' and denied petitioner's motion for discharge.
The sole question presented is: Does a defendant's motion for a continuance of a preliminary hearing and the granting of same constitute a waiver of the 180-day period set out in Rule 3.191, F.R.Cr.P.? Pertinent portions of the subject rule are as follows:
In Anderson v. State, 1 the Supreme Court held in respect to the necessity of preliminary hearings, viz.:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The cited rule clearly states that a person charged with a crime is entitled to the benefits 'whether or not such person has been held to answer at a preliminary hearing'. The unequivocal decision of our Supreme Court is that a preliminary hearing is not a prerequisite to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blount v. Edell, 42986
...Jr., as Judge, etc., Petitioner, v. Dora Pino EDELL, Respondent. No. 42986. Supreme Court of Florida. Dec. 20, 1972. Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 47. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ...
-
State ex rel. Allen v. Taylor, Q--423
...by the Supreme Court of Florida? The detailed language of subsection (f) requires a negative answer. This Court recently held in Edell v. Blount 1 that the delay occasioned by a State Attorney in failing to file an information, although found by the trial judge to have been caused by the de......