 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Honeycutt2/11/2003
Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED.
All concur.
Opinion:
The trial court dismissed the state's charge that defendant Benjamin Honeycutt drove on the wrong side of the road for failure to prosecute. The state appeals, arguing that under section 545.780, RSMo 2000, a court can dismiss an information or indictment only if there has been a violation of the accused's right to speedy trial and, further, that a dismissal in any other circumstance would impermissibly interfere with prosecutorial discretion. This Court disagrees. Section 545.780 has no application where, as here, defendant has not invoked the right to speedy trial, and the trial court acted within its inherent superintending authority over its docket when it dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not a final, appealable judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 9, 1997, Mr. Honeycutt received two traffic tickets, one for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and a second for failure to drive on the right half of the roadway, both written on a form entitled "Uniform Complaint and Summons," following Form 37A of this Court's rules. As is the practice in many jurisdictions, the local prosecutor signed and filed one copy of the uniform complaint, labeled "Complaint and Information," thereby commencing prosecution of both charges against defendant. The prosecutor later substituted a separate, formal information on the DWI charge.
A trial date of April 27, 1998, was set for both charges, but only the DWI case was formally called. The docket sheet shows the driving on the wrong side of the road charge as being continued. A jury trial was held on the DWI charge in October 1998. Defendant was acquitted. For reasons not set out in the record, the charge for driving on the wrong side of the road was not tried on that date, or thereafter, and languished in the court's files until January 2001. At that point, the newly elected judge of Lafayette County noted the case had long been pending but inactive and called it up for a status hearing. For the first time, the prosecutor indicated an intent to proceed to trial on the charge.
Defendant moved, orally and in writing, for dismissal based on res judicata and the statute of limitations. On May 14, 2001, the trial court denied dismissal on the two grounds raised by defendant, but on its own motion entered an order stating "the case is dismissed for lack of prosecution." The state appealed and, alternatively, filed a petition for writ of prohibition requesting review should this Court determine that the order below was erroneous but unappealable because not final. Following decision by the Court of Appeals, Western District, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.
II. ANALYSIS
The state contends that section 545.780.2 precludes a judge from dismissing for failure to prosecute unless defendant's right to speedy trial has been violated. It states:
1. If defendant announces that he is ready for trial and files a request for a speedy trial, then the court shall set the case for trial as soon as reasonably possible thereafter.
2. The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by mandamus. Neither the failure to comply with this section nor the state's failure to prosecute shall be grounds for the dismissal of the indictment or information unless the court also finds that the defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. (emphasis added).
The state overreads subsection 2 of the statute. It must be read in context. Subsectio
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|