STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY LUIS AGUILAR, 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 appealed a trial court's suppression order, but the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the prosecutor's announcement of a nolle prosequi (voluntary dismissal) effectively ended the criminal proceeding, rendering any subsequent court orders—including the suppression ruling—a nullity and depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.
The court held that a nolle prosequi is self-executing and effectively ends the criminal proceeding upon announcement without requiring court approval, making any subsequent trial court actions void. Consequently, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the suppression order because the case had already ended.
[1] A nolle prosequi effectively ends a criminal cause, rendering any subsequent rulings by the trial court void.
[2] The State has the discretion to announce a nolle prosequi at any time prior to the swearing of the jury to try the cause.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a nolle prosequi effectively ends the proceeding, and any action taken subsequent to the filing of the nolle prosequi is a nullity”
Establishes that trial court actions after nolle prosequi are void
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Luis Aguilar was charged with cocaine possession. On the day of a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, the State requested a continuanc…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
This appeal, commenced by the State, concerns the legal effect of the announcement of a nolle prosequi by the prosecution on the later announced rulings of the trial court. It concerns, as well, our ability to review these proceedings. Because a nolle prosequi effectively ends a criminal cause, we conclude that although the trial court had no authority to make subsequent rulings and that they are accordingly void, we likewise have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The case was effectively over when the announcement was made by the State.
The appellee, Anthony Luis Aguilar, was charged with possession of cocaine. On the day of a hearing on Mr. Aguilar’s motion to suppress, the State moved for a continuance because the arresting officer failed to appear to testify.
The trial court denied the continuance, and the State moved forward, intending to rely on the officer’s probable cause affidavit to support its position. When the trial court refused to admit the affidavit, the prosecutor announced a nolle prosequi. After some prodding by the defense, the trial court then announced that it declined to accept the nolle prosequi, and was granting the motion to suppress.
The court concluded by declaring that its order was the “law of the case,” implying that it would be effective in the event that the State decided to refile the charges. The State appeals the suppression order. At common law the State has the discretion to announce a nolle prosequi at any time prior to the swearing of the jury to try the cause. Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla.1956).
In addition, because it is solely within the State’s discretion to nol-pros a cause, it may timely do so without the permission of the court. State v. 576 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that the trial court erred in refusing to accept the State’s nolle prosequi filed after the trial court denied the State’s motion to continue, but before jeopardy attached).
This discretion is not unlimited, however, insofar as the State’s ability to dismiss a case without prejudice and to file a new information is restricted by double jeopardy and the speedy trial rule. State v. Stell, 407 So. 2d 642, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Nevertheless, a “nolle prosequi effectively ends the proceeding, and any action taken subsequent to the filing of the nolle prosequi is a nullity.” Sadler v. State, 949 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). See also State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Moreover, it is self-executing upon its announcement, and immediately terminates the proceeding. State v. Spence, 658 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). No approval of the trial court is required. Accordingly, the actions taken by the trial court after the announcement of the nolle prosequi, including the granting of the motion to suppress in the present case, were most certainly a nullity.
The nolle prosequi, however, ended the case for our purposes, as well. There is nothing for us to review. Accordingly, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
PLEUS, J., and EARP, J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyndal Kenneth Wilkins v. State, 90 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…retion of the State, it may do so without the permission of the trial court. Id. Consequently, “a ‘nolle prosequi effectively ends the proceeding, and any action taken subsequent to the filing of the nolle prosequi is a nullity.’ ” State v. Aguilar, 987 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting Sadler v. State, 949 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Here, it is apparent from the record on appeal that error was unintended because the trial court acknowledged that the State nolle prossed count II. Howev…
-
Quartez M. Davis v. State, 210 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011). In the context of a criminal jury trial, the State may announce a .nolle prosse of a charge at any time before the jury is sworn. Wilkins v. State, 90 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); State v. Aguilar, 987 So. 2d 1233, 1234-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The State does not need the trial court’s permission. Wilkins, 90 So. 3d at 306; Aguilar, 987 So. 2d at 1235. A nolle prosse is self-executing upon its announcement and immediately terminates the proceeding. Aguilar, 98…
-
Small v. State, 249 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
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
- F. K. G. Co., Inc. v. Keys Bottled GAS Co., 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1957)
- State v. Stell, 407 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1956)
- State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. J.B. Spence, 658 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Fine v. Remax Advantage Plus, 949 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Sadler v. State, 949 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. M.J.B., 576 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)