STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE FULLER, 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 State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a concealed weapons charge against Fuller. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the undisputed facts support reasonable inferences sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and therefore the motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4) was properly denied.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. The undisputed facts and reasonable inferences therefrom establish a prima facie case of carrying a concealed weapon, as Fuller's own gun was found in his jacket pocket and the jacket's weight remained constant, permitting a reasonable inference that Fuller himself placed and concealed the gun prior to the accident.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure should not be granted if any facts or inferences from undisputed facts establish a p…
[2] In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4), the trial court should not determine fact issues or consider the weight of conflicting evidence or the credibil…
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 (c)(4) motion should not be granted if any facts or inferences from any facts establish a prima facie case against the defendant”
Establishes the standard for reviewing motions to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4)—the trial court must deny the motion if any reasonable inferences support the prosecution's case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFuller was injured in an automobile accident on November 25, 1983. While he lay unconscious, bystanders removed his jacket and handled it. Police late…
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 Rule 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s dismissal of count one of an information which charged Fuller with carrying a concealed weapon.1 We find that the trial court erred in granting Fuller’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and we reverse.
Appellee was injured in an automobile accident on November 25, 1983. As he lay unconscious on the ground, his sister’s girlfriend, Cathy, and her mother, removed his jacket from his body. Cathy held it for a time and then placed it on the trunk of his car. Later the jacket was handed back to Cathy by another bystander. She held it and then handed it to the police. The police thereafter found a .38 Special firearm in a pocket of the jacket, which belonged to Fuller and was registered in his name. Ca-, thy said the jacket’s weight did not change, in her opinion, at any time while she was handling it.
Appellee moved to dismiss the concealed firearm count on the ground that the undisputed facts did not make a prima facie case of guilt because Cathy could not establish a continuous chain of custody of the jacket after its removal from appellee’s body. The trial court ruled this was too weak a case to send to the jury.
This court has repeatedly held that a (c)(4) motion should not be granted if any facts or inferences from any facts establish a prima facie case against the defendant. State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). All inferences that arise must be taken in the light most favorable to the state. A (c)(4) motion is similar to a summary judgment in a civil case and should be granted sparingly. State v. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Upton. In considering such a motion the trial court should not determine fact issues or consider the weight of conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses. State v. Pettis, 397 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). To counter a (c)(4) motion, the state need not produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. It need only show sufficient reasonable inferences to make a prima fa-cie case. State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
In the present case we think there are reasonable inferences from the undisputed facts that Fuller was carrying a concealed weapon at the time of the accident. His own gun was found in his jacket pocket and the jacket weighed the same before and after Cathy removed it from his body and took it back from a bystander. She did not put the revolver in his pocket. Therefore, a permissible inference is possible and reasonable that Fuller placed the gun in his own pocket and concealed it there prior to his accident. Where undisputed facts or inferences permit the conclusion that the defendant may be found guilty, a (c)(4) motion should be denied. State v. De Jerinett, 283 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1973).
Accordingly, the order dismissing Count One of the information is
REVERSED.
ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . § 790.01, FIa.Stat. (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Afghari Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1996)…that he did not use violence either to steal the purse or to elude his pursuer. 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. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1985). Moreover, where a defendant’s sworn motion to dismiss is met with a traverse by the state which specifically denies under oath material facts alleged, the motion to dismiss must automatically be denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d)…
-
State v. Bonebright, 742 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…o dismiss an information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) is analogous to a motion for summary judgment in a civil case. Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Both should be granted sparingly. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The trial court should not decide factual issues, determine the weight to be given to conflicting evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In considering such a motio…
-
State v. Fordham, 465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…pton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). Equally clear is that the trial court should not decide or reconcile disputed issues of fact raised by the state’s traverse or inherent in the defendant’s motion. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Sheppard, 401 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Pettis, 397 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton; State v. Featherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 198…
Previewing 3 of 17 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. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Dalpathbhai N. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. de Jerinett, 283 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- DeJERINETT v. State, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Pettis, 397 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)