State v. Eugui

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Eugui

60 So. 3d 1185, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7586, 2011 WL 2031337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-1225

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 So. 3d 1185 (State v. Eugui) 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. Eugui, 60 So. 3d 1185, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7586, 2011 WL 2031337 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of the information charging appellee with one count of delivery of a counterfeit controlled substance. See § 831.31, Fla. Stat. (2009). The trial court based the dismissal on a motion appellee filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). The state filed a traverse which set forth specific facts which, in the light most favorable to the state, establish appellant’s knowing participation in the drug transaction. For example, a coconspirator told the state’s confidential informant that the crack was in transit, and that the informant “needed to wait for [appellee], who was in the bar, to go get the crack.” Appellee told the informant to wait for him in a bar, went to a codefendant’s house, and returned with another codefendant who made the hand-to-hand transaction. To survive a motion to dismiss, “the state need not produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. [1186]*1186So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting.” State v. Bailey, 508 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (internal citations omitted).

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of the information charging appellee with one count of delivery of a counterfeit controlled substance. See § 831.31, Fla. Stat. (2009). The trial court based the dismissal on a motion appellee filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). The state filed a traverse which set forth specific facts which, in the light most favorable to the state, establish appellant’s knowing participation in the drug transaction. For example, a coconspirator told the state’s confidential informant that the crack was in transit, and that the informant “needed to wait for [appellee], who was in the bar, to go get the crack.” Appellee told the informant to wait for him in a bar, went to a codefendant’s house, and returned with another codefendant who made the hand-to-hand transaction. To survive a motion to dismiss, “the state need not produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. [1186]*1186So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting.” State v. Bailey, 508 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (internal citations omitted).

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 So. 3d 1185, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7586, 2011 WL 2031337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eugui-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack