The State of Florida v. Osama Saad Alahmari

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0435
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0435 Lower Tribunal No. A7XIGDE ________________

The State of Florida, Appellant,

vs.

Osama Saad Alahmari, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Raul Cuervo, Judge.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Andrew Stanton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

GORDO, J. The State of Florida appeals a final judgment sua sponte dismissing

the criminal charge of driving under the influence against Osama Saad

Alahmari (“Alahmari”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I.

In April 2021, Alahmari was arrested and charged with one count of

driving under the influence, a misdemeanor under section 316.193, Florida

Statutes. The trial was tentatively set for February 20, 2024. When the case

was called, the State informed the trial court that its witnesses had confirmed

their availability on the video platform and that it was ready for trial. As the

witnesses were not present at that time, the trial court dismissed the case for

failure to produce an officer or civilian witness.

Later that afternoon, the trial court recalled the case, realized it had

“improvidently dismissed the case” and sought to vacate its ruling. Defense

counsel refused to stipulate to resubmit to the court’s jurisdiction or waive

any related appellate issue without first consulting Alahmari. The trial court

chose to leave the dismissal undisturbed and subsequently entered a final

judgment dismissing the driving under the influence charge. This appeal

followed.

2 II.

We review the dismissal for lack of prosecution under the abuse of

discretion standard. See State v. Pope, 675 So. 2d 165, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA

1996).

III.

On appeal, the State argues the trial court abused its discretion in sua

sponte dismissing the driving under the influence charge for lack of

prosecution due to the absence of an officer or civilian witness prior to the

start of the trial.

The record before us shows that the State informed the trial court it

was ready for trial and that its witnesses would be present when needed to

testify. At that point, the trial had not begun, and no jury had been sworn in.

Because the State did not abandon its prosecution, we find the trial court

abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. See

State v. Perez, 543 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“We reverse the

order under review because, simply stated, there is no showing on this

record that the state was not prepared to go forward with its case on the day

of trial. The state had announced ready for trial and thus presumptively was

prepared to select a jury, make an opening statement, and present its

witnesses. The fact that the police officers were not physically in the

3 courtroom at 2:00 P.M. before a jury had even been selected constitutes no

showing that the state was not prepared to present its evidence at trial at the

appropriate time once the trial had begun . . . The order under review is

therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with

directions to reinstate the information filed below.”).

While we recognize the challenges our busy trial judges face in the

day-to-day management of their calendar, dismissal under these

circumstances is not appropriate. We remand with instructions to reinstate

the charge filed below.

Reversed and remanded.