STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN D. SHULL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss because the motion was procedurally deficient and, even if it had been sufficient, the state's traverse raised disputed material facts.
[1] A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, must be sworn to and contain specific factual allegations.
[2] A memorandum of law filed in support of a motion to dismiss, which contains factual allegations not sworn to, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3.190(c)(4), Flori…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state charged the defendant with grand theft and dealing in stolen property. The defendant filed an unverified and unsworn motion to dismiss. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
NORRIS, WILLIAM A., Jr., Associate Judge.
In an amended information the state charged appellee with one count of second degree grand theft of a pistol and one count of dealing in stolen property, the same pistol. Appellee filed an unverified and un-sworn amended motion to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a so-called “c-4 motion.” The state filed a traverse to the c-4 motion, and thereafter the trial court granted the amended motion to dismiss as to both counts of the amended information. In dismissing the amended information the trial court erred and we reverse.
The express language of the rule, “[t]he facts on which such motion is based should be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to,” reveals the deficiency in appellee’s motion. The motion contained neither sufficient factual allegations nor were the purported facts sworn to. In support of the amended motion appellee did file a memorandum of law which alleged facts. However, these alleged facts were not sworn to and were thus insufficient compliance with the requirements of the rule. State v. Kling, 335 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); State v. McIntyre, 303 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State v. Russo, 299 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
While the procedural deficiency of the amended motion to dismiss requires reversal, we feel it is also appropriate to observe that assuming, arguendo, that the amended motion to dismiss had been sworn to and had incorporated all of the alleged facts in the supporting memorandum of law, the state’s traverse was sufficient to raise disputed material issues of fact regarding defendant’s knowledge and intent, thereby requiring a denial of the motion to dismiss. State v. Guyton, 331 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); State v. West, 262 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
The order dismissing the amended information is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs without participation in oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- State v. Kling, 335 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- State v. McINTYRE, 303 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Booker v. State, 331 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- State v. Russo, 299 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)