BRIAN DETERS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss because the issue of felonious intent was a question for the trier of fact.
Appellant was charged with third-degree grand theft and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the undisputed facts did not show the requisite specif…
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 Third Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Appellant, Brian Deters, pled no contest reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his sworn motion to dismiss the charge of third degree grand theft, which was filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the issue of felonious intent was appropriately one for the trier of fact, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying the motion, and affirm.
In this case, appellant’s motion to dismiss stated “that the undisputed material facts absolutely fail to present a prima facie showing that Brian Deters did, on August 29,1997, with the requisite specific intent commit a Grand Theft of the subject property of IDIS Corporation.” (emphasis supplied).
As held by this court in S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884, 885-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985):
In our view, a motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle for this attack. This court, as well as other district courts of appeal, have consistently held that intent and knowledge are not proper issues to be decided on a motion to dismiss. State v. Alexander, 406 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Stewart, 404 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. McCray, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980); State v. Norris, 384 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. J.T.S., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
In this case, there was sufficient conflicting evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infer intent. We, accordingly, hold that intent was not a proper issue to be decided on a “(c)(4)” motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lorette Franchi, 746 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…emurrer, essentially conceding that there were no disputed issues of material fact. However, it is well-established that if, based on the undisputed facts, a jury question exists, a(c)(4) motion to dismiss should not be granted. See Deters v. State, 741 So. 2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884, 885-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Intent is generally a jury question that usually cannot be ascertained by direct evidence but only inferred from the acts of the parties and surrounding circumst…
-
Ortiz v. Moore, 776 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to conduct such further proceedings as were necessary to ascertain the date the grievance order at issue was filed with the clerk and thereby “rendered” for appellate purposes. See Ortiz v. Moore, 741 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The circuit court determined that the grievance order was rendered on April 11, 1997, and that the petition was filed in circuit court on May 27, 1997, more than 30 days after rendition of the DOC order. The circuit court denied…
Authorities Cited
- State v. J. T. S. and G. R. W., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. McCRAY, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Stewart, 404 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Alexander, 406 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Norris, 384 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)