STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GRADY LEON PENTECOST, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of drug transaction charges against Pentecost and the suppression of a firearm seized during the investigation. The court reverses, finding probable cause for arrest and seizure, and holding that the state presented at least a prima facie case sufficient to proceed to trial.
The court holds there was probable cause to arrest and seize the firearm, and the state presented a prima facie case of guilt. A trier of fact could reasonably find Pentecost participated in the drug transaction as a lookout or protector based on his association with the drug carriers and his presence near the sale location.
[1] A trial court should not dismiss criminal charges when the state presents a prima facie case of guilt against the accused.
[2] A prima facie case of guilt may be established by evidence showing the defendant's presence with individuals carrying drugs and circling the area where a drug sale is bei…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“So long as the state barely shows a case against the accused it should be allowed to proceed with its case. Then if the accused is entitled to a directed verdict at trial or an acquittal, each party has been given its due.”
Establishes the standard for prima facie cases—state need only show minimal evidence to proceed to trial, leaving ultimate guilt determination to the trier of fact
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted a drug investigation and observed Pentecost leave with two individuals carrying drugs. Pentecost was later seen circling the area whe…
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 Criminal Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing criminal charges against the appellee and an appeal from an order granting the suppression of evidence. The two orders are rather interrelated. The search and seizure was a result of an investigation regarding the sale of drugs. The charges were for the participation in a drug transaction. The trial judge dismissed the charges because he determined the state did not present a prima facie case of guilt against the appellee. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The trial judge granted the motion to suppress because he determined the police lacked probable cause to arrest or search and seize.
Upon a review of the record, we must find there was probable cause to arrest and a right to seize the gun. We also have to say there was at least a prima facie case of guilt shown by the state in contravention of the “(c)(4)” motion. A trier of fact could find the appellee was a participant in the drug transaction as a look-out or protector, both of which operatives are common to large scale drug transactions, such as this one. The fact that the police saw appellee leave with the two persons who were carrying the drugs and that he was-later seen circling the area where the sale was being consummated is sufficient to lead to a prima facie finding of involvement. Whether he was involved and to what extent is up to the trier of fact to decide.
The order dismissing the charges cuts off the right of the state to attempt to prove its allegations in much the same manner as a summary judgment proceeding on the civil side. So long as the state barely shows a case against the accused it should be allowed to proceed with its case. Then if the accused is entitled to a directed verdict at trial or an acquittal, each party has been given its due. It is only when the state cannot establish even the barest bit of a prima facie case that it should be prevented from prosecuting. State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. J. T. S., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting. State v. Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The defendant is protected in that if the state’s case is insufficient at trial, the defendant may obtain a directed verdict of acquittal, or the jury will find the defendant not guilty. See id. In sum, only where the most favor…
-
State v. Hargrove, 552 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting. State v. Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The defendant is protected in that if the state’s case is insufficient at trial, the defendant may obtain a directed verdict of acquittal, or the jury will find the defendant not guilty. See id. In sum, only where the most favor…
-
State v. Nicki Joe Jones, 642 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1977); State v. Giesy, 243 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). To withstand such a motion, the state need establish only a prima facie case. State v. Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Cramer, 383 So. 2d 254, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1980); State v. Savarino, 381 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). . We agree with the state's observation that section 914.23 does not a…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. J. T. S. and G. R. W., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)