STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TODD NORWOOD AND KIMBRELY UPRIGHT, APPELLEES
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 a trial court's dismissal of fraud and theft charges against Norwood and Upright, who were accused of fraudulently soliciting donations on behalf of a police officers' charity. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding disputed factual issues and a prima facie case sufficient to proceed.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because disputed material facts existed—specifically, whether the defendants had authorization to solicit donations—and the facts alleged were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of guilt for the charges.
[1] A motion to dismiss an information, when based on undisputed facts, is appropriate only if those facts fail to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
[2] When reviewing an order dismissing an information, the evidence and all reasonable inferences are construed in the light most favorable to the State.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“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.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating motions to dismiss and the requirement that facts be undisputed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorwood and Upright were charged with scheme to defraud and petit theft for soliciting and collecting donations purportedly on behalf of the Disabled …
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 Motion To Dismiss Information cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals an order granting Todd Norwood’s motion to dismiss. Nor-wood and codefendant Upright were charged with a scheme to defraud and petit theft in connection with their soliciting and collecting donations purportedly on behalf of the Disabled Police Officers of America. Filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b), the motion challenges the factual allegations of the information. The 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 with all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the State. Id. If the undisputed facts indicate that the defendant could be found guilty of the crimes charged, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Id. The defendant has the burden of establishing that there are no material issues of disputed fact and that the facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. State v. Covington, 973 So.2d 481, 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because neither the motion, nor the testimony presented at the hearing, established that it could not prove a prima facie case. We agree. First, accepting as true all the allegations in the motion to dismiss, the very face of the motion indicates there is a disputed issue of fact. Specifically, the charity organization’s president denied that it contracted with Norwood and Upright to work for or collect money on its behalf, which directly conflicted with Norwood and Upright’s assertion that they had a contract with the charity to solicit businesses. Further, Norwood could not produce a signed copy of his contract with the charity. Additionally, the very terms of the contract do not negate the State’s charges. The contract indicates that Kelvin & Associates agreed to “contact businesses ... to sell advertisements in an ad book,” and that any monies would be equally split between the charity and Kelvin & Associates. Conspicuously, the contract does not authorize Kelvin & Associates to solicit cash donations from businesses. Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the charges and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and JACOBUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. A.R.R., 113 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…our counts against Appellee. A motion to dismiss should be granted only when, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the undisputed material facts are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of the charged offense.2 State v. Norwood, 66 So. 3d 388, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Motions to dismiss criminal charges are treated like summary judgment motions in civil cases, the purpose of which is to test the legal sufficiency of the underlying case. State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla.…
-
State v. Fay (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…3.190(c)(4)] procedure, a defendant may seek dismissal where '[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.' " Id. (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4)); see also State v. Norwood, 66 So. 3d 388, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("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."). The burden to demonstrate that the evidence does not establish…
-
State v. Fay (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…le 3.190(c)(4)] procedure, a defendant may seek dismissal where '[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.' " Id. (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4)); see also State v. Norwood, 66 So. 3d 388, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("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."). The burden to demonstrate that the evidence does not establish a p…
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. Ivory Covington, II, 973 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- State v. Shuler, 988 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)