STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between its Scott decision and the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in this case regarding the sufficiency of an oath (jurat) on a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. The Court held that a jurat containing the qualifier "to the best of his knowledge" is procedurally defective because it fails to require the defendant to affirmatively state that allegations are true and correct, thereby undermining the oath's purpose to prevent false or unverified filings.
A jurat containing the qualifier "to the best of his knowledge" is procedurally defective and insufficient. The oath must require the defendant to affirmatively state that allegations are true and correct without such qualifying language, as the phrase undermines the oath's protective purpose.
[1] A sworn motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires a jurat that affirmatively states the facts contained in the motion are tr…
[2] A jurat containing the qualification "to the best of his knowledge" is procedurally defective because it allows a party to make allegations without the risk of perjury if…
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“Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury. If the allegation proved to be false, the defendant would be able to simply respond that his verification of the false allegation had been "to the best of his knowledge" and that he did not know that the allegation was false.”
Establishes the policy rationale for requiring unqualified oaths—to prevent defendants from avoiding perjury liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos Rodriguez was charged with burglary of a conveyance and theft. He filed a sworn motion to dismiss that included a jurat stating the defendant 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 Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
Pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, we accepted jurisdiction of this cause to resolve a conflict between our decision in Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985), and that of the Third District Court of Appeal below in State v. Rodriguez, 505 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The facts are simple. Respondent was charged by information with burglary of a conveyance and theft. He filed, through his attorney, a pleading captioned “Sworn Motion to Dismiss,” under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Our focus here is not on the merits of the motion, but on the jurat, which the rule requires. It read:
BEFORE me, the undersigned authority personally appeared, CARLOS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, who by me first duly sworn, deposes and says the facts contained in the foregoing Motion To Dismiss are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the state argued that the jurat was insufficient because of the words “to the best of his knowledge.” In affirming the dismissal, the Third District Court of Appeal reasoned that the jurat “clearly rested upon the defendant’s own knowledge of the facts recited in the motion.”
In Scott this Court considered a jurat on a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which read:
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Paul William Scott, who, being first duly sworn, says that he has personal knowledge of the allegations in the foregoing motion to vacate judgment and/or sentence and that the allegations and statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
464 So. 2d at 1172. Pointing out that the words “to the best of his knowledge” had been added to the standard oath (see the form in rule 3.987, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure), the Court held the jurat to be procedurally defective. We said:
Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury. If the allegation proved to be false, the defendant would be able to simply respond that his verification of the false allegation had been “to the best of his knowledge” and that he did not know that the allegation was false. We require more than that. The defendant must be able to affirmatively say that his allegation is true and correct.
464 So. 2d at 1172.
Though this case involves a different rule of procedure, the purpose of the oath is the same: to prevent the filing of motions based on falsehoods or unverified allegations. Under the rationale of Scott, the oath contained in the motion to dismiss was, in effect, no oath at all, and thus defective.
We hereby quash the decision of the district court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995)…, when the complaint states facts that show that such person violated a criminal law of this state within the jurisdiction of the magistrate to whom the complaint is presented. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.120. Johnson principally relies on State v. Rodriguez, 523 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1988), and Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985), for the proposition that an affidavit including a reservation “to the best knowledge” is insufficient. However, these cases are readily distinguishable, because both dealt not with arrest w…
-
Velazquez v. State, 561 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Reversed and remanded. . The jurat in the defendant’s sworn motion to dismiss was technically defective, see State v. Rodriguez, 523 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1988), but this deficiency was cured by the defendant’s oath given in open court. We reject the state’s argument that this might be a defective oath because [*349] the court reporter did not transcribe the exact wording of the oath. The state d…
-
State v. Sawyer, 526 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…a sanction under the factual circumstances. See State v. Ryan, 513 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Burnison, 438 So. 2d 538 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). We need not decide whether the sworn motion to dismiss is sufficient under State v. Rodriquez, 523 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1988) (ju-rat in which defendant swears to his statements being to the “best of his knowledge” not sufficient for motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4)). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.…
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
- Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Rodriguez, 505 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)