Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/State v. Hamilton

State v. Hamilton

387 So. 2d 555
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 10, 1980
Docket79-2043
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 387 So. 2d 555 (State v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hamilton, 387 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

387 So.2d 555 (1980)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Dane Montel HAMILTON, Appellee.

No. 79-2043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 10, 1980.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from the dismissal "for lack of prosecution" of its information charging the appellee with possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. The appellee failed to file a brief in this appeal but after carefully reviewing the record containing the transcript of the hearing below which resulted in the dismissal, we reverse.

The state, on the day of trial, orally moved for continuance on the ground that a law enforcement officer needed for trial was attending a two week intelligence school somewhere on the east coast of the state. The state had been granted another *556 continuance two months previously when the case was first set for trial. That continuance was apparently necessitated when the suppression of a confession by the appellee caused the state to need a witness they did not originally anticipate using, and who, at the earlier trial date, was in Idaho. On the second trial date, when the state again moved for continuance because of the lack of the presence of the law enforcement officer attending intelligence school, two weeks remained before the time for speedy trial would have run.

While we recognize and sympathize with the apparent frustration of the trial judge with the lack of diligence of the state in preparing for trial, we believe that dismissal of an otherwise valid information is too extreme a sanction where there is no showing of prejudice or unfairness to the appellee. Cf., State v. Smith, 342 So.2d 1094 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The court could have properly within its discretion denied the state's motion for continuance. If the state was then unable to prove a prima facie case because of the unavailability of the witness, a directed verdict for the appellee would have been in order.

We, therefore, reverse and remand for treatment consistent with this opinion.

GRIMES, Acting C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Kalfani
968 So. 2d 599 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
State v. Soles
661 So. 2d 62 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Joyner
46 Fla. Supp. 2d 73 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1991)
State v. Ottrock
573 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State v. Perala
46 Fla. Supp. 2d 54 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Berman
43 Fla. Supp. 2d 19 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Fortesa-Ruiz
559 So. 2d 1180 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
State v. Wilson
541 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. Lundy
531 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. Laroche
20 Fla. Supp. 2d 112 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1986)
State v. Haynes
463 So. 2d 1248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
State v. Evans
418 So. 2d 459 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
State v. Rogers
402 So. 2d 50 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 So. 2d 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-fladistctapp-1980.