State ex rel. Girard v. McNulty, 50574
| Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50574,50574 |
| Citation | 348 So.2d 311 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. Christopher N. GIRARD, Relator, v. Joseph P. McNULTY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Philip J. Padovano, of Ruiz, Padovano & Schrader, St. Petersburg, for relator.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Relator Christopher Girard filed a Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition asking this Court to prohibit the District Court of Appeal, Second District, from exercising jurisdiction in the case of State v. Stewart, et al., Case No. 76-140. We issued a Rule Nisi in Prohibition commanding the respondents to show cause why the writ should not issue. The respondents' brief in opposition to the suggestion has been received.
On August 14, 1975, Girard, Wayne Stewart and John Tudor were arrested and charged by information in the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, with sale of marijuana. Girard moved to dismiss the information for its failure to allege grounds necessary to charge a felony or alternatively to transfer the cause to county court which has jurisdiction over misdemeanors. On January 19, 1976, the Motion to Dismiss was granted by order of the circuit court. It is not clear from the conformed copy of the record filed in this Court whether the cause was transferred to county court but, in any event, the information filed in circuit court was dismissed.
On January 23, 1976, the State filed its Notice of Appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal for review of the dismissal order. On the same day, on the State's motion, the circuit court ordered that the running of the Speedy Trial time, under Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P., be extended for a time as may be reasonably necessary for the State to prosecute its appeal and reset the case for trial. Girard then moved that the circuit court vacate the "extension" order for failure of the State to serve him notice of the hearing on it. The court ruled that the dismissal of the information created an exceptional circumstance which permitted the court, by Rule 3.191(d)(e), Fla.R.Crim.P., to extend the Speedy Trial Rule time on an ex parte motion. Accordingly the Motion to Vacate was denied. Girard then moved to dismiss the appeal before the district court on the ground that it is moot. The motion was denied and this suggestion for prohibition followed.
If the time under the Rule was not validly extended, then it has expired 1 and Girard, upon proper motion, and finding of availability for trial, must be forever discharged from the crime. Rule 3.191(a)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P. Discharge moots the State's appeal so that the district court has lost jurisdiction and should be prohibited from proceeding on it. 2
Girard contends that the time was not validly extended because dismissal of an information is not one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherrod v. Franza, 60683
...of the courtroom. In our opinion the remedy by prohibition is a speedy and efficient one. The recent case of State ex rel. Girard v. McNulty, 348 So.2d 311 (Fla.1977), involved a speedy trial issue. In Girard we held If the time under the Rule was not validly extended, then it has expired a......
-
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Bonanno, 74373
...Fla. Because the Act purports to remove jurisdiction from Judge Bonanno's court, prohibition is the proper remedy. State ex rel. Girard v. McNulty, 348 So.2d 311 (Fla.1977). Preliminarily, we disagree with Judge Bonanno that the Act "applies only to citrus nursery plants and not to trees pu......
-
State v. Carter
...extension is not invalid merely because it is not one of the exceptional circumstances enumerated in rule 3.191(f). State ex rel. Girard v. McNulty, 348 So.2d 311 (Fla.1977). Florida courts have strictly adhered to the procedures delineated in rule 3.191 governing the security of an accused......
-
Lowe v. Price
...is a proper remedy to prevent a lower court from proceeding in a cause over which it has no jurisdiction. State ex rel. Girard v. McNulty, 348 So.2d 311 (Fla.1977), and a court does not have jurisdiction to try a defendant when he is entitled to discharge because his right to speedy trial h......