State v. Perez, s. 79-165
| Decision Date | 18 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-165,79-181 and 79-256,79-169,79-170,s. 79-165 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 923 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David PEREZ et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles Corces, Jr., Eula Tuttle Mason, William I. Munsey, Jr., Robert J. Landry, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, and Bruce Hinshelwood, Asst. State's Atty., Orlando, for appellant.
Alan S. Ross of Weiner, Robbins, Tunkey & Ross, P. A., Miami, for appellees Corcuera, David Perez, and Capestany.
William Plowman, Tampa, for appellee Chambrot.
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee Campaz.
Raymond R. Pines, Tampa, for appellee Hector Rodriquez.
Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for appellees Avila, Serrano, Luis Perez, Escorcia, and Cortez.
Lawrence Scott, Tampa, for appellees Cardosa, Camejo, and Romero.
The state appeals from orders of dismissal entered by the trial judge on motions to dismiss filed by all defendants. The trial court granted the motions after finding that each defendant had been prejudiced by the state's failure to comply with discovery. But the state contends in part that certain defendants are not able to show prejudice from the state's violation of the discovery rules because those defendants have filed waivers of the speedy trial time. We agree with the state's contentions.
Five of the defendants, Antonio Avila, Carlos Serrano, Luis Perez, Jorge Luis Escorcia and Alberto Cortez, filed waivers of speedy trial. Nonetheless, the trial court granted their motion to dismiss on the basis of a finding of prejudice arising out of the state's failure to comply with discovery rules. We find that the granting of the motion to dismiss as to these five defendants was an abuse of discretion. Dismissal is an extreme sanction which should be imposed only when less severe sanctions would not accomplish the desired result. State v. King, 372 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Although the waiver of speedy trial time does not excuse the state's discovery violations, it does prevent these five defendants from showing sufficient prejudice to justify the dismissal. Since Avila, Serrano, Perez, Escorcia and Cortez had all filed waivers of speedy trial, a more appropriate sanction, among others available to the court, would have been the continuance of the trial for a period of time sufficient to allow the defendants to obtain discovery and prepare for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Del Gaudio
...where State furnished discovery on eve of trial, and three weeks remained before expiration of speedy trial period); State v. Perez, 383 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing dismissal; continuance appropriate sanction as to those defendants who had waived speedy trial rights); State v. K......
-
State v. O'Brien
...(1983).2 See Rankin v. State, 143 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla.1962); Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604, 605 (1940); State v. Perez, 383 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (dismissal extreme sanction); State v. Oliver, 322 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (dismissal of cause within discretion of trial......
-
State v. Burnison, 83-98
...a lesser sanction would not accomplish the desired result. State v. Smith, 342 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accord, State v. Perez, 383 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In State v. Spillane, 419 So.2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), where an order dismissing an information was granted following alle......
-
State v. Ryan, 4-86-2470
...a lesser sanction would not accomplish the desired result. State v. Smith, 342 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accord, State v. Perez, 383 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In State v. Spillane, 419 So.2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), where an order dismissing an information was granted following alle......