STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DOYLE LAWRENCE, 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying the state's motion for a continuance and granting the motion to suppress.
The state requested a continuance for a suppression hearing because its only witness failed to appear. The trial judge denied the continuance and gran…
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 Motion For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s granting of appellee’s motion to suppress.
A date was set to hear the motion to suppress physical evidence. The state requested a continuance when its only witness failed to appear at the hearing. The trial judge denied the motion to continue and granted the motion to suppress after the state rested without presenting any evidence to justify the warrantless search.
The real issue is whether the state’s motion for continuance should have been granted.
Denying a motion for continuance is within a trial judge’s discretion and his or her ruling will be disturbed only when that discretion has been abused. Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1990).
We distinguish State v. Reed, 421 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Reed the state and the defense had agreed to hear a motion to suppress a confession immediately before trial. A week before trial, the trial judge called a pending motion to compel for hearing and insisted that the suppression hearing also be heard on the same day. Apparently, the state was caught by surprise and could not produce any witness on such short notice. The motion to suppress was granted. The Reed court found an abuse of discretion.
Sub judice, the missing witness had been notified of the hearing and the state gave no explanation for his absence or any assurance that he would appear on a later date.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s denial of the motion to continue and affirm the granting of the suppression order. HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McCARTHY, 585 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…HERSEY, Judge. The state appeals from an order granting a defense motion to suppress in a possession of diazepam case. We affirm on. the authority of State v. Lawrence, 560 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The defense filed a motion to suppress physical evidence on November 2, 1990. At the hearing on December 3, 1990, the state requested a continuance because its two witnesses (police officers), who had been served with subpoenas…1 / 3
-
State v. White, 792 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…r these circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the State’s motion for continuance and dismissed the information. See State v. McCarthy, 585 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See also State v. Lawrence, 560 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). AFFIRMED. DELL, GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Dickler, 677 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Lawrence, 560 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER J., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Reed, 421 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)