STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY F. CLARK, 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's appeal of a dismissal of a perjury information is reversed because the trial court relied on documents outside the record without proper procedural compliance with Rule 3.190(c)(4).
A trial court cannot dismiss an information based on documents not attached to the motion to dismiss and not supported by a sworn statement of facts as required by criminal procedure rules.
[1] A motion to dismiss a criminal information must be supported by documents attached to the motion and a sworn statement of facts as required by Rule 3.190(c)(4), CrPR, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State charged Mary F. Clark with giving contradictory statements under oath in violation of Section 837.021, F.S.A. The trial court dismissed the …
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order dismissing an information which charges the giving of contradictory statements under oath in violation of Section 837.021, F.S.A. In addition to its argument on the merits, the State urges that the order cannot stand because the two statements which are alleged to be contradictory were never made a part of the record. These documents were not attached to the motion to dismiss, nor did the motion include a sworn statement of the facts upon which it was based as required by Rule 3.190(c)(4), CrPR. Hence, the court necessarily went outside the record in order to make its determination that the information should-be dismissed. There is no showing that the State acquiesced in this procedure.
Under the circumstances, we are unable to reach the merits of the case, because it is clear that the record did not contain the basis upon which the court predicated its order. Accordingly, the order of dismissal is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Nothing herein shall preclude the filing of a new motion to dismiss with the necessary supporting documents to test the legal sufficiency of the State’s case.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.