STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDRE CALIXTE, 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 appealed the trial court's dismissal of a burglary tools charge after the defendant entered a no contest plea to five counts. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss a count based on its factual determination that the evidence did not constitute a burglary tool, and that the proper procedure required a motion to dismiss.
The trial court lacked authority to dismiss the burglary tools charge without the state's consent based on its factual determination about the nature of the evidence. The proper procedural mechanism for resolving such disputes is a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), not dismissal at the plea conference.
[1] An order dismissing a count of an information, even if termed an "acquittal" by the trial court, may be treated as a dismissal order appealable by the state.
[2] A trial court, at a plea conference, lacks the authority to dismiss a charge based on its belief that the evidence does not satisfy the statutory definition of the offens…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“At the plea conference, the trial court was without the authority to enter a dismissal without the consent of the state based on its belief that the master key was not a burglary tool within the meaning of the statute.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack authority to dismiss charges at plea conferences based on their factual determinations without state consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndre Calixte was charged with five crimes: possession of cannabis with intent to deliver/sell, grand theft of a motor vehicle, burglary of a conveyan…
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 Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state charged appellee, Andre Ca-lixte, in a five-count information with: 1) possession of cannabis with intent to deliver/sell; 2) grand theft of a motor vehicle; 3) burglary of a conveyance; 4) possession of burglary tools; and 5) possession of drug paraphernalia. Calixte was arrested after a traffic stop revealed that the car was stolen, drugs and paraphernalia were found in the car, and appellee possessed a “Toyota master key.”
Without negotiating a plea bargain with the state, Calixte entered a plea of no contest to all five charges to the court. Not convinced that the master key was a burglary tool, the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced the appellee on four counts, but “acquitted” Calixte of the burglary tools charge. The state preserved its objection to the “acquittal.” This case concerns only the state’s appeal of the dismissal of the burglary tool charge. The state does not challenge the disposition of the other four counts.
Although the trial court used the term “acquittal,” the order is properly treated as an order dismissing a count of an information which the state may appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(A). See State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221, 1226 n. 5 (Fla.2000); State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). At the plea conference, the trial court was without the authority to enter a dismissal without the consent of the state based on its belief that the master key was not a burglary tool within the meaning of the statute. The proper procedural mechanism for resolving such an issue is a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).
The dismissal of the possession of burglary tools charge is reversed.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., and DAMOORGIAN, DORIAN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)