State v. Lundy, 87-3237
| Decision Date | 30 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3237,87-3237 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2252,531 So.2d 1020 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2252 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Richard LUNDY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and W.H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The state appeals from the trial court's order which dismisses the charge against Richard Lundy. We reverse.
Richard Lundy was charged by information with grand theft on June 7, 1985. Due to the trial court's heavy docket, his trial was continued twelve times. None of these continuances were attributed to the state or Lundy.
On October 26, 1987, the case was again set for trial. On that date the state made its first request for a continuance because four of its witnesses were unavailable. The trial court denied the state's motion for a continuance and sua sponte dismissed the case.
The state appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for a continuance without a showing of prejudice by the appellee and in dismissing the case without making an inquiry as to whether the state would proceed without its witnesses.
Although a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance, we believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying the state's motion and dismissing the case. This was the first continuance requested by the state and Lundy did not make a motion for discharge at the time the trial court dismissed the case.
As we stated in State v. Hamilton, 387 So.2d 555, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), "dismissal of an otherwise valid information is too extreme a sanction where there is no showing of prejudice or unfairness to the appellee."
Accordingly, we reverse the final order and remand for further proceedings. If upon remand the state fails to present a prima facie case against Lundy, dismissal would then be appropriate.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortesa-Ruiz
...nature of the failure to proceed or to produce witnesses, coupled with an alleged prejudice to the defendant. State v. Lundy, 531 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Thomas, 519 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Daise, 508 So.2d at 560; State v. Wilson, 498 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DC......
-
State v. Cohen, 95-372
...Evans, 418 So.2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). While a trial court has broad discretion in considering a continuance motion, State v. Lundy, 531 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the trial court abused its discretion in this case by responding with a dismissal. See State v. Macon, 584 So.2d 218 (Fl......
-
State v. Cook, 5D00-3749.
...factors. We also find that the dismissal of the State's case sua sponte was an abuse of judicial discretion. See, e.g., State v. Lundy, 531 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (trial court abused its discretion in denying State's first motion for continuance of prosecution of defendant based on w......
-
State v. Humphreys, 2D03-2377.
...charges, such denial has been held an abuse of discretion when there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant. Cf. State v. Lundy, 531 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (reversing the trial court's dismissal of a case after it had denied the State's motion for a continuance because there wa......