State v. Bradshaw

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Bradshaw

872 So. 2d 1010, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6717, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1174

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-2669

StatusPublished

This text of 872 So. 2d 1010 (State v. Bradshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bradshaw, 872 So. 2d 1010, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6717, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1174 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order dismissing a charge of criminal mischief. The charges arose out of Chester Bradshaw’s alleged destruction of an earthen berm in a preserve owned by the State of Florida. A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4)of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure should be granted sparingly and only when no factual basis exists which could establish a prima facie case of guilt. State v. Fordham, 465 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The facts alleged in Mr. Bradshaw’s motion, that there were no victims and no damage in this case, were disputed by the State and therefore, dismissal of the charge was error.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. PLEUS, J., dissents without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order dismissing a charge of criminal mischief. The charges arose out of Chester Bradshaw’s alleged destruction of an earthen berm in a preserve owned by the State of Florida. A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4)of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure should be granted sparingly and only when no factual basis exists which could establish a prima facie case of guilt. State v. Fordham, 465 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The facts alleged in Mr. Bradshaw’s motion, that there were no victims and no damage in this case, were disputed by the State and therefore, dismissal of the charge was error.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. PLEUS, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 So. 2d 1010, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6717, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bradshaw-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack