¶1Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State's Atty., for petitioner.
¶2Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, for respondent.
¶3Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5The state has filed a common law petition for writ of certiorari, seeking to contest an order granting the defendant's motion for discharge in a criminal proceeding for failure to try him within the period provided under the speedy trial rule.
¶6The court set the matter on its own motion to determine jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is the petitioner's contention that he has no adequate remedy by appeal and that, therefore, a petition for certiorari is appropriate. However, we note that the order granting a motion for discharge is in the nature of a final disposition of the proceeding in the trial court and would be subject to being reviewed upon a notice of appeal. Pena v. Schultz, Fla. 1971, 245 So.2d 49; State v. Mims, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So.2d 52; State v. Lott, Fla. 1973, 286 So.2d 565.
¶7Certiorari dismissed.