Feger v. Fish
| Decision Date | 24 August 1932 |
| Citation | 106 Fla. 564,143 So. 605 |
| Parties | FEGER v. FISH, Judge. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by William C. Feger for a writ of prohibition prayed to be directed to Bert Fish, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Volusia County. On respondent's motion to quash and demurrer to rule nisi.
Writ of prohibition issued in accordance with opinion.
COUNSEL Z. Bass, of New Smyrna, and Scarlett & Futch of Deland, for petitioner.
Hull Landis & Whitehair, of Deland, for respondent.
This case is before us on motion to quash and demurrer to rule nisi in prohibition issued by this court directed to Hon. Bert Fish, judge of the criminal court of record of Volusia county, on petition of William C. Feger.
The petition alleges, in fact: that Feger was informed against in the criminal court of record of Volusia county, Fla., in an information charging him with the crime of perjury on the 10th day of November, 1931. That at the term of court at which the information was filed the petitioner demanded trial, but trial was denied and the case was continued upon the application of the state. That at the next term of the court thereafter, to wit, the January term, the petitioner was ready for trial and demanded trial but the cause was again continued. That at the next term of the court, to wit, the March term, the petitioner was ready for trial and demanded trial, but trial was denied, and the case was again continued. That at the next term of court, to wit, the May term thereof, the defendant was ready for trial and demanded a trial, but again the case was continued for the term.
It is alleged that one Philip Chapman is the only known witness against the defendant and that that witness is in the state of Maine, not within the jurisdiction of the court, and this court will take judicial cognizance of the fact that such witness if in the state of Maine is beyond the jurisdiction of the court and that there is no process by which he may be brought into the jurisdiction of the court as a witness.
Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to discharge under the provisions of section 6057, R. G. S., section 8362, C. G. L., and that he has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial under the provisions of section 11 of the Declaration of Rights. That by reason of the provisions of section 6057, R. G. S., section 8362, C. G. L., the criminal court of record of Volusia county is proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction in holding petitioner to answer further to the charge pending against him.
The statute above referred to may be said to be only a legislative determination of the maximum delay in the trial which may be imposed upon one charged with a criminal offense where such delay is brought about without any fault or affirmative action on the part of the accused and is allowed to obtain ever his protest.
When a court by its affirmative action denies to the accused the rights guaranteed to him under section 11 of the Declaration of Rights, such action on the part of the court is in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, may be reached by prohibition.
While the statute refers in terms to indictments,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Cacciatore v. Drumright
...stood unrevoked and unreversed, and both charged the same offense; that therefore its jurisdiction had terminated. Citing Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605. Conceding for the sake of argument only that, if contention were well founded in fact, it would afford good ground for a writ o......
-
V.C. v. Ferguson, 82-323
...(Fla.1968); Dickoff v. Dewell, 152 Fla. 240, 9 So.2d 804 (1942); Woodward v. Petteway, 123 Fla. 892, 168 So. 806 (1935); Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605 (1932). Even if it were arguable that the foregoing Supreme Court decisions are distinguishable and that, therefore, Hoffman v. J......
-
State ex rel. Soodhalter v. Baker
...and also all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.' (Emphasis added). See Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605 (1932). The 1956 Article V revision, however, created a fundamental change in this Court's constitutional power to accept an origina......
-
Gallego v. Purdy, 82-748
...* * * where such delay is brought about without any fault or affirmative action on the part of the accused * * *" Feger v. Fish, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605 (Fla.1932). State ex rel. Atwood v. Baker, 250 So.2d 869, 871 (Fla.1971). We conclude that both the statute and the constitution implica......