STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND WILLIAMS, 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 appeals the trial court's dismissal of a cocaine possession charge against Williams. The appellate court reverses, finding that the undisputed facts establish a prima facie case of possession sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
The court held that the undisputed facts are sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Williams possessed the cocaine-containing cigar tube immediately before its discovery by law enforcement, thereby establishing a prima facie case of possession.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) requires the state to present a prima facie case of guilt against the accused.
[2] If undisputed facts do not legally constitute prima facie proof of the crime charged, or if they affirmatively establish a valid defense, a motion to dismiss should be gr…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the undisputed facts do not legally constitute prima facie proof of the crime charged, or if they affirmatively establish a valid defense, a motion to dismiss should be granted. However, if the undisputed facts permit the conclusion the defendant could be found guilty of the charged crime, the motion must be denied.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was stopped while operating a vehicle belonging to Marcus Oliver. An officer observed nothing on the ground when arriving at the scene. After…
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 Driving With A Suspended License cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals from the trial court’s order which dismissed the charge of possession of cocaine against Williams. We reverse.
The state charged Williams with possession of cocaine1 and driving while his license was suspended or revoked.2 He filed a motion to dismiss the possession charge pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) on the ground that there are no material disputed facts underlying this charge against him, and that they do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Williams’ statement of facts are set forth in his motion, and they were not disputed (traversed) by the state. In fact, the prosecutor collaborated with defense counsel in the wording of the facts and both attorneys agreed to their accuracy-
The statement of facts were as follows:
1. That on or about March 12, 2001, the defendant was operating a motor vehicle that belonged to Marcus Oliver and was stopped by the police.
2. That at the time of the stop, the defendant was told to exit the vehicle.
3. That according to the testimony of the officer, they looked in the area of the car and did not see any items on the ground when he arrived on the scene.
4. That after the defendant exited the vehicle, it was noticed there was a cigar tube lying on the ground.
5. That there was also discovered, inside the car, many similar cigar tubes.
6. When the item was picked up from the ground, there were several rocks of what appeared to be crack cocaine inside the tube.
7. The tube was not tested for fingerprints to determine if the defendant had dropped the tube and the defendant was not seen discarding the tube.
8. That there are no other facts or evidence to connect the defendant to the cigar tube or the items found inside the tube.
The function of a “e4” motion to dismiss is to require the state to present a prima facie case of guilt against the accused, similar to a summary judgment situation in a civil case. State v. Williams, 539 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). If the undisputed facts do not legally constitute prima facie proof of the crime charged, or if they affirmatively establish a valid defense, a motion to dismiss should be granted. However, if the undisputed facts permit the conclusion the defendant could be found guilty of the charged crime, the motion must be denied. Williams; State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
All reasonable inferences that arise from the undisputed facts must be taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution’s case. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Prior to Williams alighting from his vehicle, the law enforcement officer specifically noted there was nothing on the ground. After Williams got out of his car, the tube containing what appeared to be cocaine rocks was found. Other tubes like the one found on the ground were found inside the car. In this case, we think the undisputed facts are sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the cigar tube found on the ground came from Williams or from inside his vehicle, which was (under the stated facts), in his sole possession. Thus, Williams’ possession of the contraband immediately before it was discovered by the officer, can reasonably be inferred from the undisputed facts in this case.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur. . § 893.03(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. . § 322.34(2)(a), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Yarn, 63 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…on to dismiss, the State may proceed in two ways. First, the State may concede that the facts [*85] are undisputed but may argue that inferences from those undisputed facts could nevertheless support a finding of guilt. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing order granting a motion to dismiss even though the State stipulated to a statement of undisputed facts because reasonable inferences from those facts could support a finding of guilt). Alternatively, if the State disp…
-
Bostic v. State, 902 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…r if they affirmatively establish a valid defense, a motion to dismiss should be granted. However, if the undisputed facts permit the conclusion the defendant could be found guilty of the charged crime, the motion must be denied.” State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In addition, all reasonable inferences that arise from the undisputed facts must be taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution’s case. Id.…
-
State v. Shuler, 988 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In determining whether a prima facie case of guilt has been established, “if the undisputed facts permit the conclusion the defendant could be found guilty of the charged crime, the motion must be denied.” State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The courts have consistently held that “the State is not only entitled to receive the most favorable construction of the evidence but also to have all inferences resolved against the defendant.” Bell, 882 So. 2d at 470; see…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Grady Leon Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Williams, 539 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)