79 So. 3d 134
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- State appeals a trial court order that dismissed charges against Brosky sua sponte.
- The trial court dismissed the charges due to frustration with the progress of the matter.
- Florida law construes charging and prosecuting discretion as the State's exclusive prerogative, not the court’s, absent a statute or motion to dismiss.
- There was no motion to dismiss or nolle prosequi filed by the State in this case.
- Rule 3.190(c)(4) enumerates the grounds for a court to entertain a motion to dismiss, none of which were present here.
- The appellate court reverses the dismissal and remands for reinstatement of the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion | Brosky (State) argues dismissal was improper | Brosky contends dismissal rewarded public windfall; State's charging discretion should prevail | Dismissal was an abuse; remand for reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnett, 985 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reversal for improper dismissal sanction by court)
- State v. Leon, 967 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (court erred in dismissing case; improper infringement on prosecution)
- Dawson v. State, 951 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (dismissal as a sanction to be used only when no viable alternative exists)
- State v. L.E., 754 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (extreme sanction; dismissal reserved for when no feasible alternative)
- State v. Bryant, 549 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (prosecution discretion not affected by public/private interests)
- State v. Cohen, 662 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (dismissal not favored absent viable alternative)
- State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (sanction context discussed in prosecution discretion)