STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS THOMAS CONTE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals the dismissal of a conspiracy charge added to a trafficking information 11 months after the original charge. The court reverses, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the conspiracy count solely on grounds of prosecutorial delay without finding actual prejudice to the defendant's trial preparation.
The court held that an information should not be dismissed based solely on prosecutorial delay unless the trial court makes a finding supported by competent evidence that the defendant was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. The mere recitation of the word 'prejudice' in a written order is insufficient when the defendant presents no evidence of actual prejudice.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss a criminal charge solely due to prosecutorial delay unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice in the preparation of their defense.
[2] A defendant must present evidence of prejudice to the preparation of their defense to support a dismissal of a charge based on untimeliness.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Whether undue delay has occurred depends upon the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and, most importantly, the prejudice suffered by the defendant.”
Establishes the three-factor test from State v. Parent that governs prosecutorial delay analysis, with prejudice being the most critical element.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Conte was charged with trafficking in cocaine on March 10, 1986. On February 23, 1987—nearly one year later—the state amended the information to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prosecutorial Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The state appeals from a final order dismissing the conspiracy count from the amended information charging the appellee with trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We reverse.
The appellee, Louis Conte, was charged on March 10, 1986, with trafficking in over 200 grams of cocaine. He pled not guilty to the charge. On February 23, 1987, the state amended the information to include a second count, a charge of conspiracy to traffic in over 200 grams of cocaine. The appellee moved to quash the amended information alleging untimeliness in the filing of a new charge, prejudice in preparing a defense, and bad faith. After hearing the motion the trial court entered an order striking the conspiracy count of the amended information.
In its appeal from that order the state argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the conspiracy count. The state contends that the appellee did not show that he was prejudiced by the delayed filing and that the trial judge actually based the dismissal on timeliness, since he failed to make any findings of prejudice. We agree.
The appellee fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. As the state points out, the conspiracy count would have been proven with the same witnesses that had been listed for the trafficking charge a year earlier. No further preparation by the appellee for trial was necessary. At the motion hearing the trial judge did not focus on any prejudice to the appellee; rather, he centered his attention on the state’s repeated practice of late filing. Upon dismissing the amended count for conspiracy, the trial court stated:
How many more is the state attorney doing this on, getting them up to trial and filing amended informations for conspiracy?
... I’m going to tell you right now, Mr. Hartery, you review your files this week, and any you want to amend you get them amended at least two months before trial. I am not going to have this anymore.
You know, if you think that’s, you know, an easier charge.
I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, I’m going to strike the second count.
... I’m going to strike it, as being untimely.
As we noted in State v. Parent, 408 So. 2d 612 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), “[wjhether undue delay has occurred depends upon the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and, most importantly, the prejudice suffered by the defendant.” The prejudice that Parent speaks to is directed to prejudice in the preparation of a defense. In the instant case the appellee does not contend that he would be prejudiced by the delay in the preparation of his defense. We realize that some state attorneys are dilatory in the prosecution of their cases; however, an information should not be dismissed solely because of prosecutorial delay unless there is a finding by the trial court, supported by competent evidence, that the defendant was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. Even though the written order finds “that the information is not timely and prejudicial to the defendant,” the trial court failed to make any finding of prejudice at the hearing. The mere recital of the word prejudice in an order is insufficient, particularly where the defendant fails to present any evidence that would support a finding of prejudice in the preparation of his defense.
Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the conspiracy count of the amended information.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 721 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…any fashion, and given that the amendment did not add a new factual basis for these charges and actually downgraded one of the charges, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying the continuance. See State v. Conte, 516 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (defendant did not show prejudice from State’s delay in adding conspiracy count to information charging trafficking in cocaine); cf. Turner v. State, 376 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (amendment of information, which changed char…
-
State v. Rogel Vixamar, 687 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e authorizing judicial intervention. See State v. Matos, 589 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(error to dismiss information where state inadvertently cancelled a deposition and defendant lost opportunity to question a material witness); State v. Conte, 516 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(dismissal not appropriate sanction for state’s untimely filing of amended information), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988). Against this legal backdrop, even assuming that the trial court was authorized to enforce the disposi…
-
State v. Erickson, 852 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…efendant as to any claimed defense, and thus was harmless, where language of original information stated that defendant attempted to kill the victim by shooting him with a firearm, and amendment caused information to read correctly); State v. Conte, 516 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (defendant did not show prejudice from State’s delay in adding conspiracy count to information charging trafficking in cocaine where the conspiracy count would have been proven with the same witnesses who had been listed for the t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scheuter v. Scheuter, 408 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Parent, 408 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)