State v. S.M.F., 88-1411
| Decision Date | 13 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1411,88-1411 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 20,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1438 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1438 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. S.M.F., a juvenile, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of dismissal. S.M.F., a juvenile, was arrested for possession of cocaine and possession with intent to sell. When the case first came to trial, the trial court granted the State's unopposed motion for continuance. At the next trial setting, the case was called and the defense announced that it was ready for trial. The State advised the court that it was awaiting the arrival of the arresting officer, and the court temporarily passed over the case.
When the court recalled the case, the State announced that the arresting officer had arrived, but that the officer had failed to bring the evidence. The State informed the court that it had sent the officer back to retrieve the evidence and, not incidentally, that the lab technician was not present. The court gave the State approximately half an hour to produce both witnesses.
When the court called the case for the third time, the State requested a continuance because the arresting officer had not arrived and the lab technician was out ill. The State also, anticipating the court's sua sponte dismissal of the charges, objected to their dismissal. At this juncture, the State obviously had no intention of abandoning its case. The court denied the State's last-ditch request for a continuance and sua sponte dismissed the charges for lack of prosecution. We reverse.
Because of the resultant immunity from future prosecution of a particular charge, dismissal is a very harsh penalty to impose upon the State and is reserved for those instances where no viable alternative exists. State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Procedurally, what could the court have done?
At this point, the trial court had several viable alternatives. In this case, the trial court chose to dismiss the charges for lack of prosecution. Unfortunately, under these circumstances, dismissal was not an appropriate option.
We find less severe alternatives remained open to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortesa-Ruiz
...is a very harsh penalty to impose upon the State and is reserved for those instances where no viable alternative exists. State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (......
-
State v. Brosky
...1982); see also State v. J.G., 740 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Cohen, 662 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The reason that dismissal of criminal charges should be used as a last resort is that this sanction punishes the public......
-
State v. Bonnett
...exists. See State v. J.G., 740 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Cohen, 662 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The reason that dismissal of criminal charges should be utilized as a last resort is that this sanction punishes the public......
-
State v. L.J.T., 5D05-955.
...v. Thomas, 622 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); see also State v. L.E., 754 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20, 20-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Courts restrict dismissal to "cases where no other sanction can remedy the prejudice to the defendant ... to insure that ......