THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL JOHNSON, 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 trial court's dismissal of a false imprisonment charge against Johnson. The appellate court reverses, holding that when the state files a sworn traverse specifically denying the material facts alleged in a motion to dismiss, the trial court must deny the motion and proceed to trial.
When the state files a sworn traverse that with specificity denies under oath the material facts alleged in a motion to dismiss, the trial court has no discretion and must deny the motion. Viewing the allegations in the traverse most favorably to the state, there exists evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty, so the matter must proceed to trial.
[1] A trial court must deny a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) if the State files a sworn traverse that specifically denies the material…
[2] When the State files a traverse that specifically denies the material facts alleged in a motion to dismiss, the trial court has no discretion and must deny the motion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A motion to dismiss under (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the State files a traverse which with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss”
Establishes the mandatory rule that trial courts must deny such motions when a proper sworn traverse is filed by the state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was charged with false imprisonment under Florida Statutes § 787.02. Johnson filed a motion to dismiss arguing the material facts were undispu…
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 Traverse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing an information filed against the defendant which charged him with false imprisonment in violation of section 787.02, Florida Statutes (1979). We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. § 924.07(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), alleging that the material facts pertaining to the charges were undisputed, and that the undisputed facts did not amount to a prima facie case of guilt against him. In response, the state filed a sworn traverse specifically disputing the material allegations contained in the defendant’s motion. Fox v. State, 384 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1977).
Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered an order dismissing the information and this appeal ensued. We reverse.
Rule 3.190(d) provides, in relevant part: A motion to dismiss under (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the State files a traverse which with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss, (emphasis added).
Under this rule, when the material facts alleged in the defendant’s motion to dismiss are specifically denied by the state’s sworn traverse, as in the instant case, the trial court has no discretion in the matter and must deny the motion. State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Power, 369 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Huggins, 368 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Cook, 354 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.1978); Ellis v. State, supra; State v. Hamlin, 306 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In addition, viewing the allegations in the traverse most favorably to the state, State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1971); State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. De Jerinett, 283 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1973), we conclude that there exists evidence upon which a jury of reasonable men could find the defendant guilty of false imprisonment. The motion should therefore have been denied and the evidence presented to the jury for resolution. State v. McCray, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Smith, 376 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1980); State v. McIntyre, 303 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…there was also a passenger in the truck, presenting a joint occupancy issue which is not present in this case. In light of the traverse on the ultimate fact question of knowledge, the motion to dismiss should have been denied. See State v. Johnson, 398 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) (a motion to dismiss shall be denied if the State files a traverse which with specificity denies under oath the facts alleged). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. . The first district’s opinio…
-
State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ing dominion and control. When material facts are specifically denied by the state’s sworn traverse, as in this case, the trial court has no discretion and must deny the motion. State v. Radandt, 410 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Johnson, 398 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Last, even if the state had not filed a sworn traverse, on the facts presented to us by the appellee himself, the court should have denied his motion. A proceeding under rule 3.190(e)(4) is the equivalent of a civil summary judg…
-
State v. Williams, 400 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…o the case at bar, it is obvious that the facts denied by the state constitute the heart of Ms. Williams’ justification for self-defense. Once placed in dispute, the court had no choice but to allow a jury to resolve thé issue. See State v. Johnson, 398 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Cook, 354 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Huggins, 368 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- State v. Hamlin, 306 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- State v. de Jerinett, 283 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- DeJERINETT v. State, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Smith, 376 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. McCRAY, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)