State of Florida v. Ariel Paul
Docket 3D2025-0037
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 3D2025-0037
Appeal from an order granting motions to suppress in a DUI prosecution in county court
Summary
The State appealed a county court order that granted Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress evidence in a DUI case after the prosecution failed to produce three subpoenaed officers for a suppression hearing. At the first hearing one officer testified and the court continued the matter, instructing the remaining officers to appear; the State did not contact those officers and they did not appear at the continued hearing. The trial court denied the State’s request for further continuance and granted suppression. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because the State failed to show due diligence in securing the witnesses.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant the State a continuance to secure subpoenaed officers for a suppression hearing
- Whether the State showed due diligence in attempting to secure the appearance of its subpoenaed witnesses
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the standard that continuance decisions rest within the trial court’s discretion and are reviewed for abuse of that discretion. The record showed the State made no attempt to contact or confirm the attendance of three subpoenaed officers and provided no explanation for their absence. Because the State failed to demonstrate due diligence in securing the witnesses, the trial court’s denial of further continuance and grant of suppression was proper.
Authorities Cited
- Bouie v. State559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1990)
- Magill v. State386 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1980)
- Geralds v. State674 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1996)
- Madison v. State132 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Parties
- Appellant
- State of Florida
- Appellee
- Ariel Paul
- Judge
- Betsy Alvarez-Zane
- Attorney
- James Uthmeier, Attorney General
- Attorney
- Haccord J. Curry, Assistant Attorney General
- Attorney
- Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender
- Attorney
- Maria E. Lauredo, Chief Assistant Public Defender
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-05-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
The State should determine whether to file a timely motion for rehearing in the district court to preserve arguments about continuance or to present any new factual showing of diligence.
- 2
Assess available evidence
Both parties should review the remaining admissible evidence to decide whether to proceed to trial, negotiate resolution, or seek alternative remedies given the suppression ruling.
- 3
Consult counsel about further appeal
If the State believes there is a substantial legal question or conflict warranting review, counsel should evaluate the viability of seeking discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant suppression of evidence because the State failed to show it had diligently attempted to secure subpoenaed officers for the suppression hearing.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant, Ariel Paul, benefits because the suppressed evidence cannot be used against him at trial; the State is affected because it lost the ability to present certain witness testimony and evidence.
- What happens next in the criminal case?
- With suppression affirmed, the State may need to reassess its case without the excluded evidence; it could seek to retry or proceed on other admissible evidence, or explore whether further pretrial relief is appropriate.
- Can the State appeal further?
- The State may have limited options; further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court would require a basis such as a conflict of law or substantial question of law, and any timely motions for rehearing should be resolved first.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 6, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0037
Lower Tribunal No. AHCW2YE
________________
State of Florida,
Appellant,
vs.
Ariel Paul,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Betsy
Alvarez-Zane, Judge.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord J. Curry, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellant.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Maria E. Lauredo, Chief
Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
GOODEN, J.
Appellant State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting
Appellee Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress. We affirm.
Paul was charged with driving under the influence. Following a motor
vehicle accident, Officers Cooper, Baptiste, Milfort, and Dorcent were
dispatched to the scene. Officers Cooper and Milfort discovered Paul
unconscious behind the steering wheel. Once he was cleared of any injuries,
the officers administered field sobriety exercises. Due to Paul’s
performance, he was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. Paul
refused to provide a breath sample.
Subsequently, Paul moved to suppress evidence. The trial court set
the motions for hearing. Paul subpoenaed Officers Cooper, Baptiste, Milfort,
and Dorcent—who were listed as the State’s witnesses. Officer Cooper
appeared and testified. The remaining three officers also appeared, but did
not have the opportunity to testify.
The trial court asked about the remaining officers' schedules and
continued the hearing to a future date. The court advised the officers that
they remain under their existing subpoenas and instructed them to appear at
the rescheduled hearing.
Yet the remaining three officers failed to appear at that hearing. When
questioned, the State confirmed that it had not contacted any of the officers
2
prior to the hearing and provided no explanation as to their failure to appear.
In response, Paul requested that the motions to suppress be granted. But
the State sought a continuance so they could secure the officers’ testimony.
After considering arguments from both parties and allowing the State an
opportunity to establish a record, the trial court granted the motions to
suppress. This appeal followed.
“Granting a continuance is within a trial court’s discretion, and the
court’s ruling will be disturbed only when that discretion has been abused.”
Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1990). See also Magill v. State,
386 So. 2d 1188, 1188 (Fla. 1980) (“In criminal cases an application for a
continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court,
and the denial of such a motion should not be reversed by an appellate court
unless there has been a palpable abuse of this judicial discretion. This abuse
of discretion must clearly and affirmatively appear in the record.”). “Review
is contextual, very much dependent on the ‘circumstances’ presented in
each case.” Madison v. State, 132 So. 3d 237, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Under these circumstances, we find the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. Contrast State v. McCarthy, 585 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA
1991), and State v. Lawrence, 560 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), with
State v. Bercaw, 363 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). The State failed
3
to show due diligence in securing the remaining officers’ appearance.
Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1996). The State did not contact
the officers, did not confirm their attendance, and did not explain why they
failed to appear.
Affirmed.
4