THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FERNANDO GARANTIVA, 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.
Florida reversed the dismissal of an information charging burglary and possession of burglary tools because knowledge and specific intent are factual questions unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
Knowledge and specific intent to commit a crime while acting as a wheelman are ultimate questions of fact not subject to resolution on a motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4).
[1] Knowledge and specific intent to commit a crime when acting as a wheelman constitute ultimate questions of fact unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Knowledge is an ultimate question of fact and thus not subject to a motion to dismiss.”
The court cited this principle from Graves v. State to establish that factual questions about knowledge cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Fernando Garantiva was charged with burglary of two automobiles and possession of burglary tools, allegedly acting as a wheelman. The trial court gran…
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 Lookout cases and more on FLexlaw
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 Graves, this court reversed an order dismissing an information under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) based upon the following holding:
“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).”
Id. at 1007.
Because, as in Graves, the issue of knowledge and of specific intent to commit a crime while acting as a “wheelman” was concededly the central issue decided by the trial court in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss below, it follows that such order must be reversed based on the authority of Graves.
The final order of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the information herein.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Graves v. State, 590 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)