From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 21, 2004
870 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

rejecting respondent's argument that he should be released from custody because he was not brought to trial within thirty days of the trial court's probable-cause finding because respondent explicitly waived the thirty-day trial requirement in order to work on his defense

Summary of this case from Morel v. Wilkins

Opinion

Case No. 3D03-3351.

April 21, 2004.

A case of original jurisdiction — habeas corpus, Lower Tribunal Case No. 94-31310.

Charles G. White, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH, and FLETCHER, JJ.,


Craig Williams seeks to be released from custody because he was not brought to trial within 30 days of the trial court's finding of probable cause that he is a sexually violent predator, pursuant to section 394.916, Florida Statutes (2003)[Jimmy Ryce Act]. The record clearly shows, however, that Williams waived his entitlement to be brought to trial within the 30-day period. See Exhibit A, State's motion to supplement record. Williams explicitly waived the 30-day trial requirement and stated that he was going to work with the public defender on his defense.

Additionally, Williams asserts in his petition for habeas corpus that he has not been brought to trial although his speedy trial time has expired. As the State points out, Williams' case is brought under the Jimmy Ryce Act, which is a civil commitment process, and is not criminal in nature. As such, the rules of criminal procedure do not apply, and speedy trial rules are inapplicable.

Section 394.9155(1) provides for the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Florida Rules of Evidence to apply (with exceptions inapplicable here).

The petition for habeas corpus is denied.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 21, 2004
870 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

rejecting respondent's argument that he should be released from custody because he was not brought to trial within thirty days of the trial court's probable-cause finding because respondent explicitly waived the thirty-day trial requirement in order to work on his defense

Summary of this case from Morel v. Wilkins

considering the merits of a petition for writ of habeas corpus which sought immediate release because petitioner was not brought to trial within thirty days of the trial court's finding of probable cause under the Jimmy Ryce Act

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

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 21, 2004

Citations

870 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Morel v. Wilkins

Several other Florida courts have reached conclusions similar to the Second District in Curry. See, e.g.,…

Kolin v. State

907 So.2d 505 (Fla. 2005), and may be waived. Williams v. State, 909 So.2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Curry v.…