State v. E.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. E.A.

701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13890, 1997 WL 757321

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1311

StatusPublished

This text of 701 So. 2d 1266 (State v. E.A.) 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. E.A., 701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13890, 1997 WL 757321 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting E.A.’s sworn motion to dismiss. Contrary to the state’s position, the record before the trial court supports its ruling that no issues of material fact existed and that the undisputed material facts — E.A.’s presence at the crime scene and his subsequent statements— failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt for grand theft against E.A. See Broner v. State, 559 So.2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Z.S. v. State, 579 So.2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.085(a)(6). Cf. State v. Gutierrez, 649 So.2d 926, 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(where affidavits and depositions filed on motion to dismiss create material disputed facts court may not determine factual issues, or consider weight of evidence or witness credibility). See generally Gaber v. State, 662 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(setting forth elements of grand theft), approved, 684 So.2d 189 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the motion.

Affirmed.

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

SHEVIN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting E.A.’s sworn motion to dismiss. Contrary to the state’s position, the record before the trial court supports its ruling that no issues of material fact existed and that the undisputed material facts — E.A.’s presence at the crime scene and his subsequent statements— failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt for grand theft against E.A. See Broner v. State, 559 So.2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Z.S. v. State, 579 So.2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.085(a)(6). Cf. State v. Gutierrez, 649 So.2d 926, 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(where affidavits and depositions filed on motion to dismiss create material disputed facts court may not determine factual issues, or consider weight of evidence or witness credibility). See generally Gaber v. State, 662 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(setting forth elements of grand theft), approved, 684 So.2d 189 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the motion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13890, 1997 WL 757321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ea-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack