STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC SHULER, 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 appealed the trial court's dismissal of six counts charging Shuler with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and unlawful use of a two-way device. The appellate court reversed the dismissals, holding that the undisputed facts—including meetings, recorded conversations, and a drug dog alert—established a prima facie case of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
The appellate court held that a prima facie case of guilt was established as to Counts I through VI and reversed the trial court's dismissal of those counts. The court affirmed the dismissal of Count VII (the trafficking charge). When reviewing such motions, courts must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution and need not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A trial court may dismiss an information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) if the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.
[2] When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the State is entitled to the most favorable construction of the evidence and all…
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 permit the conclusion the defendant could be found guilty of the charged crime, the motion must be denied.”
Establishes the standard for denying a 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss—the facts need only permit a conclusion of guilt, not prove it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShuler was charged with three counts of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, three counts of unlawful use of a two-way device, and one count of trafficki…
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 Prima Facie Case Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
The State appeals an order rendered by the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), which dismissed Counts I through VII of an Information charging the defendant, Eric Shu-ler, with three counts of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, three counts of unlawful use of a two-way device, and one count of trafficking in cocaine.1 The State does not contest the dismissal of Count VII, which contained the trafficking charge.
When a defendant files a motion pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4), the trial court is authorized to dismiss the Information if the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. State v. Bell, 882 So. 2d 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 also Williams, 873 So. 2d at 604 (“All reasonable inferences that arise from the undisputed facts must be taken in a fight most favorable to the prosecution’s case.” (citing State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981))); State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 835 So. 2d 268 (Fla.2002).
In order to withstand a motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4), the State “does not have to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction.” State v. Lebron, 954 So. 2d 52, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 966 So. 2d 967 (Fla.2007).
When ruling on the motion, the trial court should not assess the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or decide factual issues. Miller v. State, 971 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Bell, 882 So. 2d at 470. This court likens a rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to a motion for summary judgment in civil actions and has declared that motions under the criminal rule should be granted only sparingly. Miller, 971 So. 2d at 952; Williams, 873 So. 2d at 604.
Based on the applicable de novo standard of review, see Galston v. State, 943 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); State v. James, 928 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); State v. Massey, 873 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we have thoroughly analyzed the undisputed facts arising from the State’s evidence, which includes the various meetings between Shuler and the man with whom he is accused of conspiring to sell drugs; the transcripts of legally intercepted and recorded telephone conversations between the two men, along with the version of those transcripts prepared by law enforcement; and the drug dog alert on Shuler’s car, where $10,000 in cash was found shortly after one of the meetings. Considering all of the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the State and resolving all inferences against Shuler, as we are obligated to do, we conclude that a prima facie case of guilt has been established. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal as to Counts I through VI and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
We affirm the part of the order dismissing Count VII.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. .
The trial court granted Shuler's motion to sever the charges by date.
Thus, Counts I and IV, which alleged conspiracy to traffic in cocaine-delivery and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, were linked because they were alleged to have occurred on January 3, 2007. Counts II and V, which charged the same offenses, were linked because they were alleged to have occurred on January 5, 2007. Counts III, VI, and VII were linked because they were alleged to have occurred on January 6, 2007.
Hence, Shuler filed three motions to dismiss, each addressed to the three groups of severed charges. Each motion alleged that there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. The order of dismissal we review incorporates the rulings on the three motions and all of the charges.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knipp v. State, 67 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ago, 938 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). When a defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4), the trial court may dismiss the Information if the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. State v. Shuler, 988 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “A motion to dismiss under subdivision (c)(4) of ... rule [3.190] shall be denied if the state files a traverse that with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss.” State v. Kalog…
-
State v. Yarn, 63 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). And to establish the “barest prima facie case,” the State must show only that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the charged crime under the most favorable construction of the evidence. See State v. Shuler, 988 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Only when there is no construction of the undisputed facts and inferences therefrom that would allow a guilty verdict to be rendered should a motion to dismiss be granted. See Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla.199…
-
State v. Norwood, 66 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…e unsworn motion includes an unsigned contract and refers to a newspaper article and news report from Missouri. The trial court conducted a hearing and dismissed the charges. An order dismissing an information is reviewed de novo. State v. Shuler, 988 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). When a motion to dismiss is based on undisputed facts, dismissal is appropriate when the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Id. In making .this determination, the evidence is construed, along wi…
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 (11 total)
- State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Lebron, 954 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Hutchins v. State, 966 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2007)
- Miller v. State, 971 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. James, 928 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Carlton Wayne Bell, 882 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Galston v. State, 943 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)