STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY CHARLES HUDSON, 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 appealed the trial court's dismissal of an aggravated assault charge against defendant Timothy Hudson. The court reversed, holding that the State's traverse denying material facts created a genuine dispute of fact, preventing dismissal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the State's traverse created a material dispute of fact by identifying the victim's prior contradictory statements. The undisputed facts do not establish the defendant's entitlement to dismissal when the State presents sufficient facts showing a reasonable jury could find in the State's favor.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) requires that there be no material disputed facts and that the undisputed facts do not establish…
[2] To avoid dismissal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the State must file a traverse denying under oath the material facts alleged in the motion to dis…
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“Rule 3.190(c)(4) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a charge when '[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.'”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissal under this rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He moved to dismiss, claiming he acted in self-defense and that the victim had rec…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and moved to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) (2009). In the motion, defendant claimed he acted out of self defense and emphasized that the victim had recanted earlier statements given to the police. Although the State filed a traverse, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the material facts were not in dispute and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. On appeal, the State challenges the dismissal and claims the traverse created a material issue of fact. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order.
Rule 3.190(c)(4) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a charge when “[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.” To avoid dismissal under Rule 3.190(c)(4), the State must file a traverse denying under oath the material facts alleged in the motion to dismiss. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d). In the traverse, the State is not required to pretry its case, only to present sufficient facts which, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, show that a reasonable jury could find in its favor. See State v. Terma, 997 So.2d 1174, 1177-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (stating the State is entitled to the most favorable construction of the facts possible); State v. Ortiz, 766 So.2d 1137, 1141-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that when considering a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion, “the [Sjtate is entitled to the most favorable construction of the evidence with all inferences being resolved against the defendant”).
Here, in defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), he alleged he had not threatened or shot at the victim with a firearm. Defendant claimed any action taken was in self defense to dissuade the victim, who was attempting to engage in a violent confrontation with him. *157He claimed any statements made by the victim to the contrary were fabrications and attached an affidavit from the victim in which she corroborated his version of events.
However, the State’s traverse denied these allegations and identified a material issue of fact, namely that the victim had earlier stated the defendant had “shot a 9mm handgun at her twice [] and knocked her to the ground and held the gun to her head.” Viewing this allegation in a light most favorable to the State, the traverse created a dispute over material facts and the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. See State v. Fetherolf, 388 So.2d 88, 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding a motion to dismiss should have been denied when the State’s traverse contained prior statements by the victim which contradicted material allegations in the motion, despite the fact that the victim had recanted those prior statements).
We REVERSE the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERTS and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…cation order. See Washington v. State, 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. See Baldwi…
-
Davis v. State, 218 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…affirm the revocation of probation and the sentence imposed by the trial court, but direct the trial court on remand to enter a written revocation order specifying the conditions of probation appellant was found to have violated. See Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (remanding for entry of a written order of revocation of probation specifying the conditions violated in an Anders appeal). KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…w law violation); Washington v. State, 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. Nickolas,…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ortiz, 766 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Terma, 997 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)