STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH WADE ELLIOTT, 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 appeals the trial court's dismissal of drug possession charges against Elliott. The appellate court reverses, holding that the State's traverse to the motion to dismiss created a factual dispute regarding Elliott's knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substances, which precludes dismissal at the motion stage.
Where the State's traverse creates a dispute as to material facts, an automatic denial of the motion to dismiss must follow. The State made a prima facie case by presenting evidence that Elliott knew of the illicit nature of the package through his secretive possession of it and his conversation with the confidential informant regarding consequences of the package.
[1] A trial court must deny a motion to dismiss if the State's traverse creates a dispute as to material facts.
[2] A dispute regarding a defendant's knowledge of the illicit nature of possessed contraband constitutes a material fact for purposes of a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Where the State's traverse creates a dispute as to the material facts in a case, an automatic denial of the motion to dismiss must follow.”
States the controlling legal standard for resolving motions to dismiss when the State disputes the movant's factual assertions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElliott was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Xanax and Ketamine) on March 22, 2005. Elliott filed a motion to dismiss …
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 Knowledge Of Illicit Nature cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
The State appeals the trial court’s grant of appellee’s Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State filed a traverse. Because the State’s traverse creates a dispute as to the material facts of the case, we reverse.
Appellee was charged by information for two counts of possession of a controlled substance, Xanax and Ketamine, on March 22, 2005. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the material facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. In particular, the motion argued that the record did not contain a scintilla of evidence that appellee knew the illicit nature of the package’s content. The State responded by filing a traverse disagreeing with some of appellee’s assertions and introducing evidence that appellee knew of the illicit nature of the package’s content.
Where the State’s traverse creates a dispute as to the material facts in a case, an automatic denial of the motion to dismiss must follow. See State v. Aylesworth, 666 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d).
In this ease, the disputed material fact is whether or not appellee had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contents of the package he possessed when he was arrested. While appellee asserts it is undisputed that he did not know what the package contained, the State argues that its traverse contains evidence which implies appellee’s knowledge. Specifically, the State’s traverse included the fact that the package was found on appellee’s person, inside his partially-zipped jacket, and it referred to a conversation between appellee and a confidential informant which tended to show appellee knew of the illicit nature of the package’s content. When appellee picked up the package from the confidential informant, the informant stated:
Ok, well to let you know what’s happening. I have a meeting [with] my attorney tomorrow. [T]hey want me to meet with these guys from Customs. They’re trying to put the squeeze on me. [Y]ou know about things. [Tjhey’re not saying I’m going to go to jail or anything like that for this package, you know, but they’re saying they’re going to charge me a fee up to $10,000.
Thus, the State asserted that appellee knew of the illicit nature of the package in at least two separate ways, by showing that appellee hid a package in his jacket, and by referring to the conversation between appellee and the confidential informant where the confidential informant notified appellee that he would be heavily fined for the package in his possession. These assertions raise an issue of material fact that appellee had knowledge, and demonstrate that the State made a prima facie case for possession.
For this reason, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to reinstate the charges.
LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ashler Rishaud Taylor, 16 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…onstitutes an admission of the facts in question. See Kalogeropolous. On the other hand, where the State’s traverse creates a dispute as to the material facts in a case, an automatic denial of the motion to dismiss must follow. See State v. Elliott, 941 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The State is not required to oppose a defendant’s motion to dismiss with “affidavit testimony” in order to avoid dismissal. A rule 3.190(d) proceeding is not designed to create a trial by affidavit, or a “dry run” of a trial on…
-
State v. Terma, 997 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…by Ter-ma and alleging additional material facts, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Terma. See Gay, 960 So. 2d at 868-69; State v. Gordon, 942 So. 2d 1021, 1021-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Arnal, 941 So. 2d at 559; State v. Elliott, 941 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because material facts are disputed, “denial of the motion to dismiss is mandatory” and, we find that the trial court erred in granting Terma’s motion to dismiss. See Kaloge…
-
State v. Brionna Ieasha Wagner, 34 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…, it is clear that the State specifically denied under oath the material facts alleged in the motion. Because this created a dispute as to the material facts of the case, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. See State v. Elliott, 941 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“Where the State’s traverse creates a dispute as to the material facts in a case, an automatic denial of the motion to dismiss must follow.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to reinst…
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. Aylesworth, 666 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)