STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JESUS BLANCO, LAZARO ESTEVEZ AND ANGEL ESTEVEZ QUINTERO, APPELLEES
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 a traverse filed by the state prevents a trial court from granting a motion to dismiss based on undisputed facts.
[1] A trial court cannot grant a motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
[2] A traverse filed by the State to a motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
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 intelligenceThe state filed a traverse to the defendants' sworn motions to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The traverse stated the material facts in 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 Traverse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order dismissing the information in this cause under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Our review of the record indicates that the state filed a traverse to the defendants’ sworn motions to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) wherein the state averred at the outset:
“The State specifically denies that the material facts as presented in the Defendant’s Sworn Motion to Dismiss are the only facts upon which the State would rely during the State’s case in chief.”
It follows, given this traverse, that the trial court did not have before it all the material undisputed facts in the case and, accordingly, had no basis to conclude, as it did, that the material undisputed facts of the case did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.
The court stated in State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), as follows:
“The function of a ‘(c)(4)’ motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether or not the facts which the State relies upon to constitute the crime charged, and on which it will offer evidence to prove it, do, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of guilt of the accused.”
It is clear that where, as here, the facts as alleged in the sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) do not constitute all of the material facts which the state will rely upon at trial to constitute the crime charged, there is no basis upon which to grant the motion. In such a case, the trial court is not in a position to ascertain whether the facts upon which the state relies to constitute 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2000)…WELLS, J. We have for review State v. Kalogeropoulos, 735 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinion in Branciforte v. State, 678 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and State v. Blanco, 432 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we approve the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Respondent Chris Kalogeropoulos was a defendant in a vehicular homicide case. Respon…
-
State v. Ferris Michele Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…la. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Higgins, 437 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). If the facts alleged in the motion establish a pri-ma facie case, the motion to dismiss must be denied. See State v. Blanco, 432 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(citing State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)). When considering a defendant’s rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss, all questions and inferences from the facts must be resolved in favor of the State. Boler…
-
Branciforte v. State, 678 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…cts as presented in the defendant’s sworn motion to dismiss are the only facts upon which the state would rely during the state’s case in chief.” A traverse making the identical statement was found legally sufficient by the court in State v. Blanco, 432 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The Blanco court observed that, given this traverse, the trial court did not have before it all the material undisputed facts in the case and, accordingly, had no basis to conclude, as it did, that the material undisputed facts o…
Previewing 3 of 8 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. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)