STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC REEDY, 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 in dismissing the grand theft charge because the defense's oral motion did not comply with procedural rules.
The State charged Reedy with grand theft and perjury. On the day of trial, defense counsel made an oral motion to dismiss the grand theft charge, whic…
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 Perjury In An Official Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing a grand theft charge filed against Eric Reedy. Because Reedy’s motion for dismissal was not made in writing and served on the State a reasonable time before the hearing as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.060 and 3.190(a), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The State charged Reedy with one count of grand theft and one count of perjury in an official proceeding. On the day of the scheduled trial, Reedy’s counsel informed the court that a plea agreement had been reached on the perjury charge. Then defense counsel made an oral motion to dismiss the grand theft charge, arguing various grounds in support. Although the prosecutor objected and advised the court that he had no time to 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 the hearing. Because the defense did not file a written motion to dismiss, the State had no opportunity to prepare its version of the facts for the consideration of the trial court as contemplated by rule 3.190(d). See Pope, 674 So. 2d at 901. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the grand theft charge against Reedy.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Delcia Maria Suazo, 973 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…riminal Procedure 3.190(a) requires that a motion to dismiss [*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.…
-
State v. A. J., 255 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…A.J. so as to permit the court to waive the requirement that the motion be in a signed writing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(a). The court therefore erred in granting A.J.'s oral motion to dismiss. See Suazo, 973 So. 2d at 1274; State v. Reedy, 862 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing grand theft charges where motion to dismiss was not in writing and the State did not have time to prepare its response). Moreover, the State repeatedly argued—to no avail—…
-
State v. Adams (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pope, 674 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Weldon v. State, 831 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- State v. Alexander, 831 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)