STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS PINEAU ANTEL, 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 of Florida appealed the dismissal of a three-count forgery information against Antel. The trial court dismissed the information after the state declined to present evidence at the preliminary hearing regarding probable cause. The court reversed, holding that a trial court lacks authority to dismiss an information merely because probable cause was not established at a preliminary hearing.
The trial court erred in dismissing the information. Rule 3.131(a)(4) does not authorize dismissal of an information even if no probable cause is determined; rather, it requires conditional release of the defendant. The procedures outlined by Rule 3.131(a)(2) for nonadversary probable cause determinations were not properly followed.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss an information solely because it determined that no probable cause exists for holding a defendant for trial.
[2] A defendant released on their own recognizance prior to a probable cause determination may file a motion for a non-adversary probable cause determination, specifying item…
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“Even if such procedures were followed by the trial court, under no circumstances does Rule 3.-131(a)(4) authorize the trial court, upon a determination that no probable cause exists, to dismiss an information filed against a defendant.”
Establishes the core holding that dismissal of an information is not authorized by the Florida rules even absent probable cause findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 12, 1974, Antel was charged by information in three counts with uttering a forgery. He was arrested and released on his own recognizance p…
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 Uttering A Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, State of Florida, takes this appeal from an order dismissing an information charging appellee-defendant, Francis Pineau Antel, in three courts with uttering a forgery. We reverse.
On December 12, 1974, appellee-defend-ant, Francis Pineau Antel, was charged by information in three counts with uttering a forgery. After defendant was arrested on these charges, he was taken before a magistrate and ordered released on his own recognizance. A preliminary hearing was held on April 11, 1975 to determine if probable cause existed for holding the defendant for trial. The state declined to present evidence at the preliminary hearing on the issue of probable cause. The trial court thereupon entered an order dismissing the information. It is from this order that the state appeals.
In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the United States Supreme Court determined that the fourth amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended restraint on liberty following arrest. Rule 3.131 Fla. RCrP governing preliminary hearings was thereafter amended to conform with the holding in Gerstein v. Pugh. Rule 3.-131(a)(2) Fla.RCrP (effective March 31, 1975) provides that a defendant who has been released from custody before a probable cause determination is made may file a written motion for a nonadversary probable cause determination. The motion shall set forth with specificity items of significant restraint on the defendant’s liberty.
Rule 3.131(a)(4) Fla.RCrP (effective March 31, 1975) further provides that where the magistrate determines that no probable cause exists, but an information has been filed against the defendant, the magistrate shall release the defendant on his own recognizance subject to the condition that he appear at all court proceedings or release the defendant under summons to appear before the appropriate court at a time certain.
Turning to the instant case, it is apparent that the procedures outlined by Rule 3.131(a)(2) Fla.RCrP were not adhered to by the trial court. Even if such procedures were followed by the the trial court, under no circumstances does Rule 3.-131(a)(4) authorize the trial court, upon a determination that no probable cause exists, to dismiss an information filed against a defendant. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the information herein.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court dismissing the information charging the defendant in three counts with uttering a forgery is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the information and for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., and FUTCH, M. DANIEL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brooks, 388 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…dismiss a duly returned indictment or information on the basis of a finding that the evidence is insufficient to support it. State v. Schroeder, 112 So. 2d 257, 261 (Fla. 1959); State v. Umbrecht, 371 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Antel, 333 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1977). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the indictment. Reversed and remanded.…
-
State v. Umbrecht, 371 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…void further prosecution by information or indictment . . .” In considering a non-adversary preliminary hearing, this Court has, previously ruled that the finding of no probable cause does not authorize dismissal of the information. State v. Antel, 333 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The case at hand involved an adversary preliminary hearing but this distinc [*1110] tion did not warrant dismissal of the information. The order below is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the informa…
-
State v. Ballone, 422 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…robable cause. We reject appellee’s contention. Subsection (a)(4) of Rule 3.131, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not authorize a trial judge to dismiss an information upon a determination that no probable cause exists. See State v. Antel, 333 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). An adversary hearing on the issue of probable cause was unwarranted in the case at bar. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 120, 95 S.Ct. 854, 866, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the United States Supreme Court held that the fourth amend…
Authorities Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975)