Hinds v. Kimbrell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an amended petition filed after speedy trial period and charging a new offense violates defendant’s speedy trial rights
• holding that affirmance of a dismissal of new charges was required when speedy trial had lapsed, despite the fact that “the corree tion [of the charges in the amended information] would not have prejudiced D.A.’s ability to address the merits of the State’s case in any way”
• certifying conflict on other grounds with Insko v. State, 933 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), approved, 969 So.2d 992 (Fla.2007)
• “[WJhere ... the state files an amended information after expiration of the speedy trial period, upon proper motion the court must dismiss any new charge arising from the same criminal episode ... charged in the original information.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).