STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN WARREN BRUGMAN, 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 of Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of a criminal information charging John Warren Brugman with dealing in stolen property based on an entrapment defense. The appellate court reverses because the trial court made its ruling without competent evidence and, alternatively, because the entrapment defense fails as a matter of law.
The court reversed because there was no competent evidence to support the trial court's ruling, as counsel's unsworn statements cannot establish facts absent a stipulation. Additionally, the entrapment defense fails as a matter of law because Brugman was induced by a middleman (Barbara Edwards), not a governmental agent, to engage in the crime.
[1] An attorney's unsworn statement does not establish a fact in the absence of a stipulation.
[2] A trial court must have an evidentiary basis to determine the issue of objective entrapment when a motion to dismiss is not brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal P…
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“An attorney's unsworn statement does not establish a fact in absence of a stipulation.”
Establishes the core evidentiary defect in the trial court's ruling—the basis for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrugman was charged with dealing in stolen property. He filed an unsworn motion to dismiss claiming entrapment. At the hearing, neither side presented…
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 Officer Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals an order dismissing the information charging John Warren Brugman with dealing in stolen property. We reverse the order because there was no competent evidence to support the trial court’s ruling.
Brugman filed an unsworn motion to dismiss, arguing that the information charging him with dealing in stolen property should be dismissed because he was a victim of entrapment. At the hearing on the motion, neither side presented testimony or documentary evidence; there was only legal argument and counsel’s representations regarding the facts. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss.
Brugman did not bring this motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4); therefore, the trial court was required to have an evidentiary basis to determine the issue of objective entrapment. See State v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). An attorney’s unsworn statement does not establish a fact in absence of a stipulation. Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Thus, there was no competent evidence presented to the trial court.
Brugman argues that this point cannot be raised on appeal because the state did not object to counsel’s representations of fact at the trial level. We disagree because all orders of this type must be supported by competent evidence. One case seems to support Brugman’s position. In the case of Waste Management, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 571 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), this court stated:
[W]e discuss FP & L’s contention that Waste Management failed to present competent evidence in support of its claim that the documents in dispute are work product. FP & L asserts that Waste Management supported its claim of qualified privilege only through argument of counsel, not evidence. It is generally true that argument of counsel cannot be a trial court’s basis for making a factual determination. Here, however, FP & L failed to object to the trial court to the factual representations made by counsel for Waste Management. In the absence of fundamental error, which is not present in this case, FP & L cannot complain for the first time on appeal of an alleged error not disputed in the trial court.
Waste Management, 571 So. 2d at 509 (citations omitted). Waste Management, however, can be distinguished from the instant case. The attorney’s representations in Waste Management went to procedural aspects of the case, matters about which the attorney had personal knowledge which he could address as an officer of the court. In this case, the attorney’s representations involved facts not within his firsthand knowledge.
The state failed to argue the merits of the trial court’s ruling. If this court accepts the allegations contained in the motion to dismiss and the representations of counsel, it appears that the entrapment defense would not be available to Brugman. The government agent contacted Barbara Edwards who in turn contacted Brugman and brought Brugman into the illegal activity. A defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who is induced by a middleman, and not a governmental agent, to engage in crime. State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, Brug-man’s entrapment defense fails as a matter of law.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2006)…’ stipulations, courts may [*1090] only find facts based on sworn evidence; mere unsworn allegations are insufficient to prove any fact. Blimpie Capital Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Brugman, 588 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). It is plain to see, then, that by charging the court with a duty to determine the existence of probable cause, the legislature necessarily contemplated that the court would receive sworn proof. Second, it is apparent that the le…
-
Blimpie Cap. Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza P'rs, Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…e factual representations made by Blimpie’s attorney in the motion and at the hearing. We have held that, in the absence of a stipulation, a trial court cannot make a factual determination based on an attorney’s unsworn statements. State v. Brugman, 588 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). A trial court, as well as this court, is also precluded from considering as fact unproven statements documented only by an attorney. Schneider v. Currey, 584 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising…
-
Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…impie Capital Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners, Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that an attorney’s argument interspersed with unsworn representations of fact cannot support a factual finding by a trial court); State v. Brugman, 588 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that, absent a stipulation, unsworn statements by attorney on motion to dismiss criminal charge do not establish facts, and the failure of opposing counsel to object does not cure the deficiency because orders on such a m…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1991)
- Howard v. State, 571 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 571 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)