THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY HORNE, APPELLEE; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. JOHNNY YOUNG, 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 appealed the trial court dismissal of criminal informations in two cases (Horne and Young) where the trial court granted motions to dismiss under Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The appellate court reversed both dismissals, finding the trial courts committed egregious error by failing to follow mandatory procedural requirements.
Both orders dismissing the informations are reversed. The trial courts erred in granting the dismissal motions because the sworn motions themselves did not demonstrate that undisputed facts failed to establish a prima facie case, and the state filed appropriate sworn traverses which under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) mandatorily required denial of the motions.
[1] A sworn motion to dismiss under Fla. …
[2] A sworn traverse filed by the prosecution in response to a motion to dismiss under Fla. …
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“the sworn motion did not itself demonstrate that "the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant" so that dismissal would not be justified even if the state had merely demurred or not responded at all to the motion”
Establishes the legal standard for motions to dismiss under Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) - the motion itself must demonstrate undisputed facts negating prima facie case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn Horne, the defendant was arrested hiding under a bed after an armed robbery at a fast food establishment where a handgun was used. Horne filed a sw…
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 Prima Facie Case Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These cases, which we dispose of in a single opinion, are state appeals of orders dismissing criminal informations upon the granting of sworn motions filed under Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). Egregious error has been presented and both orders are reversed.
In each case,1 the record before us clearly shows both (a) that the sworn motion did not itself demonstrate that “the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant” so that dismissal would not be justified even if the state had merely demurred or not responded at all to the motion,2 and (b) that, in fact, the prosecution filed an appropriate sworn traverse which, under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d), mandatorily required that the motion be denied.3 While it is indeed regrettable that it is appropriate so to characterize the rulings below, they may thus be regarded only as embodying inexplicable and totally unjustified failures or refusals to follow the law. They are therefore reversed for reinstatement of the informations and further consistent proceedings.
In order to minimize the delay in the prosecution of these cases which has already unwarrantedly occurred, no motions for rehearing will be entertained and the mandates shall issue forthwith.
Reversed and remanded.
.Horne is an armed robbery case. The defendant was discovered hiding under a bed after escaping, in a hail of gun fire, from a fast food establishment which — along with an unknown coperpetrator who was not apprehended — he had held up while wielding a handgun. The sworn motion was based on an affidavit by Horne that the accomplice had been a hitchhiker whom he had picked up shortly before the robbery and who had “coerced” him to commit the crime at the point of a gun. The dismissal was apparently based on the conclusion that the accomplice had disappeared, and that the state could not therefore rebut this “explanation,” which was thus to be accepted as a matter of law notwithstanding that the circumstances of the offense showed completely to the contrary. It is unnecessary to dwell upon the unsupportability of this ruling.
In Young, the defendant was arrested soon after the burglary of a retail store. The sworn motion was based on the contention that the officers who observed the offenders inside and coming out of the store supposedly could not then identify Young as one of the burglars. The depositions of the officers, which were relied upon, do not support that assertion. Moreover, the motion does not even suggest that the identity issue is “undisputed,” as required to support a “(c)(4)” motion. Finally, the state’s traverse specifically stated that the officers in question could and would identify the defendant.
. E. g., State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and cases cited; State v. McCray, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and cases cited; State v. Lawler, 384 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
. State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dalpathbhai N. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…a directed verdict, or in ruling on a (c)(4) motion.1 See State v. Pastorius, 419 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). I agree with the majority that only a prima facie case need be shown by the state in the context of a (c)(4) motion. State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However, viewing the record in this case in the most damaging light to Patel, I do not think it prima facie establishes conscious reckless conduct on his part sufficient to constitute “culpable negligence” as required by the crim…
-
State v. Terma, 997 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ficient to establish a prima facie case against Terma. See Gay, 960 So. 2d at 868-69; State v. Gordon, 942 So. 2d 1021, 1021-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Arnal, 941 So. 2d at 559; State v. Elliott, 941 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because material facts are disputed, “denial of the motion to dismiss is mandatory” and, we find that the trial court erred in granting Terma’s motion to dismiss. See Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d at 112; State v. [*1179] Roederer,…
-
State v. Blanco, 432 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ute the crime charged establish, as a matter of law, a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant. Upon the filing of the traverse in the instant case, the trial court was required to deny the sworn motions to dismiss. See e.g., State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. McCRAY, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State v. Lawler, 384 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)