J. Phillip Alexander Goolsby appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm because no error has been shown. We write only to point out that a defendant’s speedy trial rights with respect to charges in one jurisdiction are not implicated when the defendant is being held pending a trial in another jurisdiction. See Hill v. Wainwright, 617 F.2d 375, n. 1 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, JJ„
holding the defendant did not demonstrate a denial of his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial where even though the delay was substantial and the defendant was detained pretrial for three years the fault for the delay was shared and the defendant continued to request continuances following his assertion for the right to a speedy trial holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction holding that felony conviction for which imposition of sentence was stayed could be counted as prior felony conviction under sentencing guidelines