STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD LUNDY, 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 trial court abused its discretion by denying the state's first request for a continuance and sua sponte dismissing the case without a showing of prejudice to the defendant.
Richard Lundy was charged with grand theft and his trial was continued twelve times. The state requested a thirteenth continuance due to unavailable w…
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 Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
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 appel-lee.”
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.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anton Ottrock, 573 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…various docket calls, the continuances granted up until the dismissal were at the behest of his attorneys. Under the facts of this case, that is not the type of prejudice or unfairness which allows a dismissal of the information. See State v. Lundy, 531 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. DELL, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Mordechy Cohen, 662 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…e v. Ottrock, 573 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); State v. Wilson, 498 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State v. 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 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); State v. Briggs, 578 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As this Court has stated, the trial…
-
State v. Humphreys, 867 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…6, 99 (Fla.1996). Moreover, when denying a continuance due to witness unavailability amounts to a dismissal of the 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 was no prejudice shown to the defendant). In this case, the State met the four factors necessary to receive a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Dane Montel Hamilton, 387 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)