Sterling v. State, 98-1866.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-1866.,98-1866.
• Citation: 728 So.2d 340
• Parties: Clarence STERLING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

728 So.2d 340

Clarence STERLING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 98-1866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1999.

Stanley H. Griffis, III, of the Law Offices of Victor Lawson Hulslander, Gainesville, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn J. Mosley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Because petitioner did not file a notice of expiration of speedy trial as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(h), he is not entitled to discharge. See Dabkowski v. State, 711 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) and Clark v. State, 698 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In addition, this court has held that prohibition is not an appropriate proceeding for determining disputed issues of fact or to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings on which the order denying discharge is based. McKinney v. Yawn, 625 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is DENIED.

MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.