Randy Mainwaring v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM 2008
RANDY MAINWARING,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 5D08-3080
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed October 31, 2008
Petition for Writ of Prohibition,
Bob LeBlanc, Judge.
Randy Mainwaring, Vero Beach, pro se.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General,
Tallahassee a nd Ann M. Phillips,
Assistant Attorney General,
Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Randy Mainwaring petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, alleging that the
speedy trial time has run and he is entitled to discharge with respect to the criminal
charges facing him.
Prior to our consideration of the petition, we remand for an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether discharge is proper.
Mr. Mainwaring was arrested on two separate warrants, one issued by Orange
County authorities and the other from Indian River County. While in custody in Indian
River County, the petitioner filed a demand for speedy trial with regard to the Orange
County charges. Apparently a transport order had been filed subsequent to the demand
for speedy trial. The State, accordingly, concedes that it was aware of the petitioner's
whereabouts at the time of the demand, but failed in their attempt to secure his
presence in Orange County. The trial judge denied the motion for discharge based on
"unavailability."
According to the State's response, it appears that Indian River may not have
honored the Orange County transport orders based upon upcoming court dates
scheduled in that county. The State agrees that an evidentiary hearing is required to
determine whether the denial of discharge based on the "unavailability" of the petitioner
was due to the petitioner's own fault, whether it was based on some action or inaction of
the State, or whether it was somehow otherwise justified. If after a hearing the trial court
determines that Mr. Mainwaring was unavailable, then he is not entitled to discharge. If
on the other hand, the petitioner was available and did not otherwise waive his speedy
trial rights, the motion for discharge should be granted.
Accordingly, this case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Mainwaring's
motion for discharge.
REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, MONACO and TORPY, JJ. concur.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
