STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN ELAINE ALEXANDER, 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 erred by granting an oral motion to dismiss charges.
The State charged Alexander with possession with intent to sell. Alexander orally moved to dismiss, arguing insufficient evidence of intent to sell. T…
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 Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the dismissal of possession with intent to sell charges filed against the appellee, Carolyn Elaine Alexander. Because the trial court erred in not proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, we reverse.
The State charged Alexander with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell. At a hearing before trial, Alexander orally moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove the intent to sell. After allowing the State to proffer its evidence, the trial court granted Alexander’s motion finding that the proffered evidence was insufficient to prove the intent to sell aspect of the charges.
Rule 3.190 requires that a motion to dismiss be in writing. State v. Pope, 674 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that it was error for the trial court to grant an oral motion to dismiss.) Accordingly, it was improper for the trial court to dismiss the charges against Alexander. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reedy, 862 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…prepare for argument because he had just been confronted with the defense arguments, the trial court dismissed the grand theft count. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(a) requires that a motion to dismiss be in writing. State v. Alexander, 831 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); State v. Pope, 674 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Moreover, rule 3.060 requires that notice of a hearing concerning a written motion that may not be heard ex parte shall be served on the adverse party “a reasonable time” before t…
-
State v. Delcia Maria Suazo, 973 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…[*1274] be in writing. This court has repeatedly held that it is improper for a trial court to dismiss charges when the defendant has not filed a written motion to dismiss. State v. Reedy, 862 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Alexander, 831 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); State v. Pope, 674 So. 2d 901, 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). These cases hold that the remedy for the improper dismissal is reversal and remand for further proceedings. Reedy, 862 So. 2d at 942; Alexander, 831 So. 2d at 1253; Pop…
-
State v. A. J., 255 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pope, 674 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)