State v. Epps

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Epps

592 So. 2d 1233, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 615, 1992 WL 13829

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1195

StatusPublished

This text of 592 So. 2d 1233 (State v. Epps) 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. Epps, 592 So. 2d 1233, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 615, 1992 WL 13829 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4).

Appellee was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of kidnapping. At a court appearance appel-lee and appellant agreed to a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to one count of robbery with a firearm. The court sanctioned the plea agreement and then said

While you were out I talked to your attorney, and we’ve agreed he’s going to be permitted to file a motion, a C4 motion. The state and defense are going to stipulate to all the facts in this particular case. If, based on those facts, I find you are not guilty based on the law, then you’ll be permitted to withdraw this plea and you’ll be found not guilty. Do you understand that?

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the state ever stipulated to the facts of the case and even though the trial judge had agreed to have a later hearing to allow both sides to present their positions, this was not done. Instead, the judge granted the motion to dismiss without first giving the state the chance to demur to or refute the facts stated in the motion. Under the rule the state is entitled to have its say and was not afforded that due process here. The order of dismissal is reversed and this cause remanded for reinstatement of all charges against appellee and such further proceedings as are warranted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4).

Appellee was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of kidnapping. At a court appearance appel-lee and appellant agreed to a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to one count of robbery with a firearm. The court sanctioned the plea agreement and then said

While you were out I talked to your attorney, and we’ve agreed he’s going to be permitted to file a motion, a C4 motion. The state and defense are going to stipulate to all the facts in this particular case. If, based on those facts, I find you are not guilty based on the law, then you’ll be permitted to withdraw this plea and you’ll be found not guilty. Do you understand that?

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the state ever stipulated to the facts of the case and even though the trial judge had agreed to have a later hearing to allow both sides to present their positions, this was not done. Instead, the judge granted the motion to dismiss without first giving the state the chance to demur to or refute the facts stated in the motion. Under the rule the state is entitled to have its say and was not afforded that due process here. The order of dismissal is reversed and this cause remanded for reinstatement of all charges against appellee and such further proceedings as are warranted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 1233, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 615, 1992 WL 13829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-epps-fladistctapp-1992.