MARK ALLEN CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Mark Allen Clark, a convicted felon, appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly rejected Clark's factual arguments about secure encasement and tool use because such factual disputes are inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).
The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because factual disputes—such as whether the knife was securely encased and whether it was a tool or weapon—are not appropriate for resolution on a 3.190(c)(4) motion. The undisputed facts established a prima facie case: Clark was a felon with a Bushmaster knife in his possession located under the seat, satisfying all elements of the offense.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) is not the proper vehicle to resolve disputed factual issues regarding the elements of a crime.
[2] The function of a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) is to determine whether the undisputed facts, as a matter of law, establish a pri…
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“The function of a(c)(4) motion is to ascertain whether the undisputed facts which the state will rely on to prove its case, establish a prima facie case, as a matter of law, so as to permit a jury to determine the defendant guilty of the crime charged.”
Establishes the limited scope of a 3.190(c)(4) motion—it addresses only whether undisputed facts establish a prima facie case as a matter of law, not factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark was stopped for driving with a suspended license and arrested. A search of his truck revealed an eighteen-inch Bushmaster knife in a sheath unde…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
LAUTEN, F.J., Associate Judge.
Sua sponte, we withdraw this court’s opinion dated October 31, 2008, and substitute the following corrected opinion in its stead.
Mark Allen Clark appeals his judgment and sentence, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). We affirm.
Clark was stopped by law enforcement because his driver’s license was suspended. He was arrested and a search of his truck revealed an eighteen-inch “Bushmaster” knife, in a sheath, located under the front driver’s seat. Because Clark was a convicted felon, he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon as a convicted felon.
Clark moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that he was entitled to carry the Bushmaster because it was securely encased and arguing that the Bushmaster was not a weapon but a tool for his work as a landscaper. The State traversed the motion, denying that the knife was snapped into a holster or otherwise carried in such a way as to be securely encased. Without deciding whether secure encasement would be a defense to the charges against Clark, we find that neither of Clark’s factual arguments is appropriate for consideration on a 3.190(c)(4) motion and the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court is not permitted to make factual determinations on consideration of a(c)(4) motion. See, e.g., Alexander v. State, 450 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Stated differently, “[t]he function of a(c)(4) motion is to ascertain whether the undisputed facts which the state will rely on to prove its case, establish a prima facie case, as a matter of law, so as to permit a jury to determine the defendant guilty of the crime charged.” State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See also Brinkley v. State, 874 So. 2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing that the only question on the motion to dismiss and on appeal is whether the facts would support the elements of the crime). The undisputed facts in this case are that Clark was a felon, had a Bushmaster knife in his possession, and the knife was under the seat. Thus, the State demonstrated sufficient facts to support all elements required under section 790.23(1). Because further factual inquiry would have been inappropriate, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
See Evans v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)…r presented issue for jury as to whether it was concealed); L.G. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (officer saw through already open door portion of handgun protruding from under driver’s seat; delinquency finding upheld); Clark v. State, 993 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (defendant’s C-4 motion to dismiss alleging 18 inch knife in sheath under front driver’s seat was “securely encased” properly denied in view of state’s traverse denying knife snapped in holster or otherwise carried in such a way…
-
Madison v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…that allege possession of a knife and a BB pellet gun, respectively, are legally sufficient to withstand pretrial motions to dismiss since whether these items are weapons under the facts of the case would be a question for the jury. Clark v. State, 993 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); State v. Jeffers, 490 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). By alleging that Appellant carried concealed weapons, to wit, a knife and a CO2 gun, the State sufficiently alleged crimes to which Appellant could either choose to enter a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Alexander v. State, 450 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Romulus Brinkley, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Williams, 873 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)