STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SABRINA MACON, 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 court held that the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing criminal charges without considering alternatives or prejudice to the defendant.
Appellee was charged with grand theft and theft and moved for a continuance. On the trial date, the court refused a plea and dismissed the charges sua…
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 Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state timely appeals the dismissal of three counts against appellee. We reverse.
Appellee was charged by information with grand theft and theft. She moved the trial court for a continuance of the trial date. On the date for which trial had been set, appellee indicated to the trial court that she was prepared to enter a plea. The trial court inquired whether it was left open. The state informed the court that the case had not been up for status conference in the past few days but had one earlier. After more discussion and the conduct of a plea inquiry, the trial court refused the plea and asked the state if it were ready for trial, which it was not, leading to the order of dismissal being appealed.
As the state points out, both parties anticipated the court accepting the plea; appellee did not request a dismissal; and the trial court dismissed sua sponte without considering options available to the state or prejudice to the defendant if trial were continued. The state did not have a chance to move for a continuance. As it notes, it barely had time to enter its objection to the dismissal. The record reveals no prejudice to appellee if continuance were allowed. The trial court did not inquire of appellee if she were ready to proceed.
Dismissal of criminal charges is only an action of last resort where no viable alternative exists. State v. Ottrock, 573 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Dismissal here constituted an abuse of discretion. See State v. Briggs, 578 So. 2d 901 (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).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mordechy Cohen, 662 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…. 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 court had several alternatives available other than sua sponte dismissal of the case: (1) deny the continuance motion, but allow the Stat…
-
State v. T.H., 592 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…for a continuance and charging the same to the state. Dismissal here constituted an abuse of discretion because the trial court had several viable alternatives available to it without resorting to the extreme sanction of dismissal. State v. Macon, 584 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . § 228.091, Fla.Stat. (1989).…
-
State v. Cecilio Martinez (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2012)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Evans, 418 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Wilson, 498 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State v. Anton Ottrock, 573 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Briggs, 578 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Turner v. State, 578 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)