STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIFFANY MONTIQUE GREENE, 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 a trial court's order dismissing an armed burglary charge against Tiffany Montique Greene pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). The appellate court reversed, holding that the State's traverse to the motion to dismiss created disputed material facts that precluded dismissal.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the State's traverse created disputed material facts by identifying prior statements from the alleged victim that contradicted Greene's allegations, and when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, these disputes precluded dismissal.
[1] A trial court may dismiss an information under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) only when there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do n…
[2] To avoid dismissal of an information under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the State must file a traverse denying material facts asserted in the motion to…
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“An information can be dismissed 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 Rule 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 intelligenceGreene was charged with armed burglary. In her motion to dismiss, Greene alleged she had a key to the residence, had permission to enter, the alleged …
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 Traverse cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss the State’s prosecution of an armed burglary charge. Appellee, Tiffany Montique Greene, contends on appeal that the trial court correctly granted the motion because the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of armed burglary. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion because there were disputed issues of fact. Because we agree with the State, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss.
An information can be dismissed when “[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4). To avoid dismissal, the State must file a traverse to deny the material fact or facts asserted in the motion to dismiss. State v. Sholl, 18 So.3d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4) is reviewed de novo. Id.
In the motion to dismiss, Appellee alleged that she had a key to the residence she was alleged to have burglarized, she had permission to enter the residence at any time, the alleged victim never ordered her to leave the residence, and the alleged victim testified in a deposition that he nev*826er saw her with a gun. The State’s traverse admitted to these facts. However, it also identified issues of material facts, namely that the alleged victim had earlier stated that Appellee kicked in the door of his residence, that she did not have a key, and that he saw her with a gun. When the motion to dismiss and the traverse are viewed in a light most favorable to the State, it is apparent that there is a dispute over material issues of fact and that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. State v. Hudson, 27 So.3d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the State’s traverse created a factual dispute by identifying a prior statement that contradicted a material fact); State v. Fetherolf, 388 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that a motion to dismiss should have been denied when the 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.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett v. State, 80 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…. The trial court rejected this argument and denied the motion to dismiss. These appeals followed. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) is reviewable de novo. State v. Greene, 43 So. 3d 825, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). An issue of statutory interpretation, which this case involves, is also reviewable de novo. Clines v. State, 912 So. 2d 550, 555 (Fla.2005). The Florida Pawnbroking Act provides in part that a “person may not engage in bus…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Kemp v. McNEIL, 18 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- State v. Hudson, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- State v. Sholl, 18 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)