STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAN FORDHAM, 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.
A sworn motion is required for dismissal under Rule 3.190(c)(4), and an affidavit based on information and belief or depositions is insufficient.
The accused filed a motion to dismiss a criminal charge under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4), but the motion was not sworn to. The accompanying affidavit s…
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss a criminal charge. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) provides that a criminal charge will be dismissed if an accused files a sworn motion stating the facts as set out in the motion are undisputed, that they are the facts upon which the charge is based and that those facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.
As has been said clearly and often, the accused must swear to the motion. State v. Upton, 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 1980). All questions and inferences from the facts are resolved in favor of the state, like the non-moving party in a civil summary judgment proceeding. State v. Fuller; State v. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Green, 400 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Here the motion was not sworn to and the affidavit which appellee signed saying “To the best of my knowledge, based upon my reading of the above depositions, the facts and matters alleged in said motion are true and correct since they derive from the sworn statements of depositions in this cause” is not sufficient to satisfy the rule requirements. This declaration is nothing more than a non sequitur. Additionally, the oath of the accused must be based upon his own knowledge of the facts and not “upon information and belief.” State v. Upton.
The order is reversed and this cause remanded for trial.
REVERSED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage CAR Rental & Sales, 656 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…writ of replevin must be verified. See Gazil, Inc. v. Super Food Services, Inc., 356 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1978). Here the affidavit from Pieroni states that it was based on “information and belief,” which is admittedly insufficient. See State v. Fordham, 465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). However, review of an order denying a motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of replevin is based not on the record before the judge at the time the writ was issued but rather is based on the record at the time the motion to diss…
-
State v. Rickie Lee Palmore, 510 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…version of the facts in filing his motion to dismiss; however, contrary to the majority’s view, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) requires the very procedure he followed.1 See State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1971); State v. Fordham, 465 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Fordham dictates that the accused swear to facts based upon his own knowledge, not upon “information and belief.” Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1971), holds that a defendant need not waive a constitutional right (i.…
-
State v. Gomez, 508 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…d facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant. The fact on which such motion is based should be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to." . See State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fordham, 465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). . State v. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218, 219, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Mayle, 406 So. 2d 108, n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1982). . St…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 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. Benny Lee Green, 400 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Dalpathbhai N. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. Pettis, 397 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Sheppard, 401 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)