From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 23, 1999
737 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that filing a detainer is not the equivalent of an arrest and does not trigger a probationer's right to be brought before the court that placed him on probation for a timely violation of probation hearing

Summary of this case from Chapman v. State

Opinion

No. 99-1263.

Opinion filed July 23, 1999.

A Petition for Mandamus, Margaret T. Waller, Respondent Judge.

Raul Diaz, Sneads, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.


Diaz seeks a writ of mandamus from this court to require the trial court to hold a hearing to dispose of a violation of probation charge pending against him. He claims he is entitled to a timely hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.790(b). We deny the petition.

The record discloses that on May 26, 1998, Diaz pled guilty and received eighteen months probation in an Orange County criminal case. On January 5, 1999, he pled guilty in an Osceola County criminal case and was sentenced to 30.15 months in prison. On February 2, 1999, Orange County filed a detainer against him in prison, based on an affidavit of violation of probation regarding the Orange County case.

Diaz then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Orange County circuit court. He sought to instigate a hearing to dispose of the violation of probation charge. The trial court denied the petition stating that Diaz had sought the wrong remedy, and that he was not being illegally detained. This petition was then filed.

Rule 3.790(b) provides that when a probationer disputes the charge of violation of probation and is brought before the court which granted probation, then "as soon as practicable" the court should give the probationer "an opportunity to be fully heard in person, by counsel, or both." This rule is based on section 948.06(1) and (4), Florida Statutes, which contains similar provisions. However, both the rule and the statute contemplate an arrest of the probationer and his or her return to the court which granted probation originally.

The record before us does not establish that Diaz has been arrested for violation of probation in the Orange County case. An arrest triggers the probationer's right to be brought before the court which placed him on probation, and to a timely hearing in the event a violation is disputed. Simply filing a detainer against a person incarcerated in prison on another criminal case is insufficient.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus DENIED.

GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Diaz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 23, 1999
737 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that filing a detainer is not the equivalent of an arrest and does not trigger a probationer's right to be brought before the court that placed him on probation for a timely violation of probation hearing

Summary of this case from Chapman v. State
Case details for

Diaz v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAUL DIAZ, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 23, 1999

Citations

737 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Kesling v. Florida

(citation omitted)); Diaz v. State, 737 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“An arrest triggers the…

Perry v. State

PER CURIAM. DENIED. Diaz v. State, 737 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). BARFIELD, C.J., WEBSTER and VAN…