Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

630 So. 2d 1150

Docket No. 93-2219.

Fuller v. Genden

William FULLER, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Michael A. GENDEN, etc., Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 30, 1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-11-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether the holding of State v. Agee [ 622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993)] applies when the prosecution is terminated by a voluntary dismissal before an indictment or information rather than a "nolle prosse" filed after an information or indictment?”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Genden v. Fuller, State v. Dilger

“[W]hether the State voluntarily terminates a prosecution before an information is filed ... rather than after the defendant has been formally charged, as was done in Agee , `is a distinction without a legally cognizable difference.'”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Genden v. Fuller, 932 So. 2d 373 - State v. McCullers

Relies on State v. Agee · 408 So. 2d 756 - Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. STATE, ETC. · 627 So. 2d 125 - Diaz v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2017

11 state decisions

70199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Atty., and Lisa Berlow-Lehner, Asst. State Atty., for respondent.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.

¶4SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

¶5We reject the state's contention that the holding of State v. Agee,622 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1993) does not apply because the state voluntarily terminated the prosecution of the defendant after he had been arrested by a so-called "no action" taken before an information was filed, rather than, as in Agee, through a "nolle prosse" filed after an information. In the light of the policy underlying the supreme court's interpretation of the speedy trial rule, this is a distinction without a legally cognizable difference. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dade County,408 So.2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Diaz v. State (Fla. 5th DCA Case no. 92-3022, opinion filed, September 24, 1993) [18 FLW D2080] (majority opinion and Dauksch, J., specially concurring), vacated on rehearing, 627 So.2d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), directly so holds. Although our earlier decision of Williams v. Shapiro,575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) is to the contrary, we believe that it has been effectively overruled by Agee. Accordingly, on the authority of Agee, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted.

¶6We certify to the supreme court that this decision involves the following question of great public importance:

Whether the Holding of State v. Agee Applies When the Prosecution Is Terminated by a Voluntary Dismissal Before an Indictment or Information Rather Than a "Nolle Prosse" Filed After an Information or Indictment?

¶7Prohibition granted, question certified.

/630/so2d/1150 · .json · Public domain