VERNON T. GRAVES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that knowledge and specific intent are questions of fact not suitable for a motion to dismiss.
Appellant drove a vehicle used by a perpetrator fleeing a car burglary. Appellant pointed a gun at the victim and fled with the perpetrator. Appellant…
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 Armed Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Vernon T. Graves, appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss charges of armed burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and petty theft. Appellant pled nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. We affirm.
The victim of a car burglary observed a person breaking into a car and chased him until the perpetrator entered another vehicle driven by appellant. Appellant then pointed a gun at the victim and fled with the perpetrator. Although appellant was also charged with aggravated assault, only the charges of armed burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and petty theft, were the subject of the motion to dismiss. Appellant contended that the undisputed facts were insufficient to support armed burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, or petty theft because the appellee State failed to show that: (1) appellant had knowledge of the perpetrator’s intentions, and (2) his presence at the scene and subsequent flight did not establish a prima facie case of guilt.
The issue of knowledge and of specific intent to commit a crime when acting as a “lookout” or a “wheelman”, as appellant is charged with doing, is not a proper issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss. S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Knowledge is an ultimate question of fact and thus not subject to a motion to dismiss. State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980); see also State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
A motion to dismiss is granted only where the most favorable construction to the State would not establish the barest prima facie case of guilt. State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1971).
We find no error, and accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…nce presented in a light most favorable to the state, the state failed to present the barest prima facie case of guilt on this charge.5 As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the information. See Graves v. State, 590 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The order dismissing the charge is therefore affirmed. GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur. . Per Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(2), the state had 15 days from rendition of the order to file its notice of appeal.…
-
State v. Espinoza, 264 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
State v. Garantiva, 603 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Based on the controlling authority of Graves v. State, 590 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), we reverse the order under review dismissing an information under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4), which information charged the defendant Fernando Garantiva with the burglary of two automobiles and possession of burglary tools. In Gra…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1971)
- Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)