State v. Cataldo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Cataldo

539 So. 2d 16, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 593, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 1989 WL 17241

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1288

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 539 So. 2d 16 (State v. Cataldo) 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. Cataldo, 539 So. 2d 16, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 593, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 1989 WL 17241 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s final order dismissing an information charging the appellee with second degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). In a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the appellee essentially contended that the state would be unable to establish that he possessed the requisite intent for the charged offense. The state, however, filed a sworn traverse which specifically denied the facts which the appellee presented in support of this contention. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d). Compare State v. Stenza, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (motion to dismiss properly granted where state’s demurrer did not refute facts presented in support of motion to dismiss which established defendant lacked intent). Since the state’s traverse reveals that material facts are in dispute and the record contains sufficient facts from which a jury could reasonably find that the appellee committed the charged offense, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See State v. Alvarez, 403 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State v. McCray, 387 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTERNBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s final order dismissing an information charging the appellee with second degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). In a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the appellee essentially contended that the state would be unable to establish that he possessed the requisite intent for the charged offense. The state, however, filed a sworn traverse which specifically denied the facts which the appellee presented in support of this contention. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d). Compare State v. Stenza, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (motion to dismiss properly granted where state’s demurrer did not refute facts presented in support of motion to dismiss which established defendant lacked intent). Since the state’s traverse reveals that material facts are in dispute and the record contains sufficient facts from which a jury could reasonably find that the appellee committed the charged offense, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See State v. Alvarez, 403 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State v. McCray, 387 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTERNBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 16, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 593, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 1989 WL 17241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cataldo-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack