STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, 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 charged Ramirez with drug trafficking based on possession of forty hydromorphone pills. Ramirez moved to dismiss, claiming he had a lawful prescription, but the trial court granted the motion despite the State's traverse showing the pills possessed were a different strength than prescribed. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State met its burden by presenting evidence of a material disputed fact.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the State met its burden of establishing that a material fact was in dispute. The State's traverse specifically refuted Ramirez's factual claim by presenting lab evidence showing the pills possessed were four milligrams, not the eight-milligram pills that had been prescribed, creating a material factual dispute that precluded dismissal.
[1] A defendant seeking dismissal of an information under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) must allege specific facts showing no material disputed facts and tha…
[2] To defeat a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the State's traverse must specifically deny the facts set forth in the defendant's mot…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.”
States the requirement for a defendant's sworn motion to dismiss under Fla. R.Crim. P. 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 intelligenceRamirez was charged with trafficking in illegal drugs based on possession of forty hydromorphone pills. Ramirez filed a motion to dismiss with a pharm…
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
The State charged Guillermo Ramirez with trafficking in illegal drugs based on his possession of forty hydromorphone pills. See § 898.135(l)(c)(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). Ramirez filed a motion to dismiss the information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), claiming that he had a lawful prescription for the drugs. Ramirez attached a pharmacy record reflecting that he had been prescribed hydromorphone tablets. Although the State’s traverse pointed out that the pills Ramirez possessed were ' a different strength than the pills he had been prescribed, the court dismissed the information. We reverse.
*53The various burdens involved when a defendant seeks dismissal of an information under the rule were explained in State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So.2d 110 (Fla.2000). The defendant’s sworn motion must allege specific facts that show “[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4). To defeat the motion, the State’s traverse must specifically deny the facts set forth in the motion or add additional facts that meet the minimal requirement pf a prima facie ease. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d); Kalogeropolous, 758 So.2d at 112.
The State met its burden in this case. Ramirez’s sworn motion alleged that he had a lawful prescription for hydromor-phone. The pharmacy record attached to support this fact showed' that eight-milligram tablets had been dispensed to him. The State’s traverse denied that the pharmacy record required a dismissal because lab results from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that the pills found in Ramirez’s possession were four milligrams in size, not the eight-milligram pills that had been prescribed. This fact specifically refuted the factual basis of Ramirez’s prescription defense as set forth in his motion to dismiss.
The State having established that a material fact was in dispute, denial of Ramirez’s motion to dismiss was mandatory. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d); Kalogeropo-lous, 758 So.2d at 112. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the information.
SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., ■ Concur.