How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Michelle Your Own Question
Michelle, Elected/Appointed Official
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 4136
Experience:  30 + yrs in the legal profession incl. criminal, family, politics, legislator judiciary 6 yrs
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Michelle is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

michelle you just tried to answer my question pertaining to ...

This answer was rated:

michelle you just tried to answer my question pertaining to speedy trial but what about the form with only WST as the motion no explanation or reason? and can a judge not respond in court to the writ of habius corpus???

Dear wrp

Yes. That is the only Motion necessary - as filed by the defense attorney. The courts get very back-logged and overburdened so it is not necessary to hold a hearing on every waiver - this is why I suggest your son read all the documents he has signed from the Public Defender - Sometimes, if a WST is filed and there is a hearing scheduled a judge will ask the defendant if they agree to waive as stated in the Motion, sometimes they don't ask. If you son is intent on having a ST, then I suggest that he speak with the supervisor of the PD and let them know that he wants the speedy trial - many times this is done when someone is going to plead guilty as there would be no purpose to waive as no defense would be need, thus no time is needed to prepare.

Please tell me what the HC was for in this matter.


Michelle and other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 9 years ago.

14th Judicial Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida , Respondent


THE PETITIONER, by and through Pro Se counsel, requests the Court to direct Respondent to discharge Matthew C Meredith as AdrXXXXX XXXXX's Public Defender and discharge AdrXXXXX XXXXX from custody on the grounds that AdrXXXXX XXXXX is unlawfully imprisoned and states:


·    At AdrXXXXX XXXXX pre trial on 7/18/2007, Public Defender Matthew C Meredith requested a Waiver of Speedy Trial without AdrXXXXX XXXXX concent or knowledge during the pre trial proceeding on case 07001107CFMB.
·    Upon hearing Matthew C Meredith request for Waiver of Speedy Trial in open court AdrXXXXX XXXXX did speak out and object to this Waiver of Speedy Trial right. The Judge Dedee Costello in response did state to AdrXXXXX XXXXX that his right to Speedy Trial was now waived.
·    Matthew C Meredith has known since his first meeting with AdrXXXXX XXXXX on 5/10/2007 that both Mark Fannin and Shannon Greenwood needed to be deposed for case 07001107CFMB. Futher Mark Fannin has been a inmate at Bay County Jail Annex since 3/24/2007 and is still in custody. Shannon Greenwood is the victim in the case and the police records show his contact information up to the date of his arrest on 6/7/2007 at which point he became an inmate at Bay County Jail from 6/8/2007 till 9/25/2007. Shannon Greenwood is currently a inmate at Florida Department of Corrections at Walton CI receipt date 9/26/2007 and his current release date is 8/27/2008. So neither is difficult to find. Matthew C Meredith has known this information all this time.
·    Matthew C Meredith has known since 8/29/2007 that Shannon Greenwood was deposed by his co defendants Attorney and that in Shannon Greenwood depostion he stated that apparently there was no robbery it was a argument. This information just came to the defendants family through Mark Fannin. Futher this information has never been communicated to the defendant before Mark Fannin brought it to the AdrXXXXX XXXXX parents attention.
· Shannon Greenwood has made three conflicting statements since his inital statements to police. I submit that Matthew C Meredith should have also moved to impeach Shannon Greenwood's statement as well.
·    Matthew C Meredith has never filed a document of any kind concerning his reasons or actions with the Clerk of Courts about the Waiver of Speedy Trial on 7/18/2007.
·    The action of the Waiver of Speedy Trial not only affected the case of Robbery with Deadly Weapon, and Aggravated Battery case 07001107CFMB. But has also waived the right to Speedy Trail on AdrXXXXX XXXXX other two cases of Aggravated Battery of Pregant Woman, Resist Officer without Violence, Possion of Lortab and Obstruct Officer without Violence cases respectivley 07000802CFMA and 07000803CFMA. Case 07001107CFMB is a separate case that should have been tried on it own, not with cases 07000802CFMA and 07000803CFMA.


AdrXXXXX XXXXX petitoned this court for Writ Habeas Corpus. In this petition AdrXXXXX XXXXX alleges violations of his civil right to speedy trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Proedure 3.191. Rule 3.191 of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that all persons charged with a crime in State of Florida are entitled to a speedy trial. In absense of demand for speedy trial, persons charged with felony are entitled to be brought to trial within 175 days of having been arrested. In AdrXXXXX XXXXX case 07001107CFMB, he was arrested 3/24/2007 which would make AdrXXXXX XXXXX experation window date 8/19/2007. AdrXXXXX XXXXX Public Defender Matthew C Meredith was aware of the depositions of the principals in the case 07001107CFMB, Mark Fannin and Shannon Greenwood were needed since 5/10/2007. And that these were the only two eyewitinesses to this occurance. Matthew C Meredith also knew of AdrXXXXX XXXXX bona fided desire to obtain a speedy trial on the merits since 5/10/2007. AdrXXXXX XXXXX stated to Matthew C Meredith that he felt these were the only two persons he needed to go to trial. Futher information which came to the parent of AdrXXXXX XXXXX, from Mark Fannin that Matthew C Meredith attended a deposition with Mark Fannin's Attorney, Assistant States Attorney, and Shannon Greenwood, with respect to Shannon Greenwood changing his statement yet again about there being a robbery. Shannon Greenwood stated it was a argument in fact not a robbery at all. This fact has never been communicated to AdrXXXXX XXXXX by Matthew C Meredith to date, nor to my knowledge has it been brought to the Courts attention. I am suspect about these two depositions that Matthew C Meredith was trying to get. On 7/18/2007 AdrXXXXX XXXXX was in pre trial proceding, where Matthew C Meredith on case 07001107CFMB did request a Waiver of Speedy Trial without AdrXXXXX XXXXX's knowledge, consent or any consultation of AdrXXXXX XXXXX in open court. Matthew C Meredith knew of AdrXXXXX XXXXX's bona fided desire to have a speedy trial, but to date Matthew C Meredith has never communicated to AdrXXXXX XXXXX of his intention or the reason of requesting this Waiver of Speedy Trial. Matthew C Meredith has never filed a document of any kind concerning his reasons or actions with the Clerk of Courts about the Waiver of Speedy Trial on 7/18/2007, simply that he was trying to track down some witnesses. Matthew C Meredith in open court on 7/18/2007 did state he was having troubles tracking down two witnesses he needed to depose for case 07001107CFMB. The only two people this could have been were the two principals in the case 07001107CFMB, Mark Fannin and Shannon Greenwood as there are no other eyewitnesses to this case. I submit that both persons are very easy to locate Mark Fannin has and still is a inmate at Bay County Jail Annex and Shannon Greenwood according to police records had contact information within the police report, futher Shannon Greenwood was also arrested on 6/7/2007 and put into custody at the Bay County Jail and was a inmate there until 9/25/2007 at which point he was transfered to the Department of Corrections at Walton CI where he is currently a inmate till 8/27/2008. When Matthew C Meredith was in open court he requested a Waiver of Speedy Trial, from Judge Dedee Costello. AdrXXXXX XXXXX did verbally object to this action by Matthew C Meredith to Judge Dedee Costello, but Judge Dedee Costello did grant the
Customer: replied 9 years ago.
writ of habeus corpus you ask about please look at it if you can sure would like to talk to you about all this i would pay you

Dear Customer

I cannot explain why the judge went along with the WST if it was placed on record that HE WAS NOT waiving. This would be a foundation for appeal.

A judge does have the autonomy to grant or deny any motion that is filed - including the WHC - as you presented - (which is very good, btw). I wonder if it was denied because there was public defender counsel appearance still entered in this matter. Do you know if the PD withdrew appearance?


Customer: replied 9 years ago.
she denied this not in court it just showed up on the docket denied and at the next prtrial she kinda without saying did a nelson hearing asking my son if he had any good reason for firing his lawyer he being nervous could only say at the time he waived my right to speedy trial without my consent she the judge really badgered my son over and over about this his public defender said he was giving my son the right to fire him but she wouldn`t let it happen and said she only way it would happen is if he paid for a lawyer

Dear wrp3409

Well, again that is the preogrative of the court - and due to the seriousness of the charges she feels that your son needs legal expertise to ensure there is a fair and just trial. I can only suggest that, at this time, he allow the PD to represent him - tell him to make sure all objections are placed on the record in case he wants to appeal. Again, the WST would already be a grounds for that - though I will suggest that a trained lawyer is going to be the best resource for an appeal in this matter.

I wish I could assist you further. You might consider contacting the Univeristy of Florida Law School or one of the other law schools in your area - they have "clinics" where third year law students assist while under the supervision of a pro bono counsel. Your son might be able to tap into that - if you feel that there are too many improper rulings by this lower court.


Customer: replied 9 years ago.
thanks for your help

Related Criminal Law Questions