State v. Power

369 So. 2d 96
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 23, 1979
Docket78-1865
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 369 So. 2d 96 (State v. Power) 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. Power, 369 So. 2d 96 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

369 So.2d 96 (1979)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Thomas POWER, Appellee.

No. 78-1865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1979.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

H. Michael Evans, Clearwater, for appellee.

DANAHY, Judge.

Appellant, the State of Florida, contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss filed by appellee Thomas Power who was the defendant in the court below. We agree.

After appellee filed his motion to dismiss an information charging him with grand theft in the second degree in violation of Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), the state filed a sworn traverse which specifically denied a material portion of the factual allegations contained in the motion. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) states that "A motion to dismiss under paragraph (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the State files a traverse which denies under oath a material fact alleged in the motion to dismiss." Accordingly, the trial court should have denied appellee's motion. State v. Wardlow, 356 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).[1]

We reverse the trial court's order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GRIMES, C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.

NOTES

[1] We also note in passing that appellee presented his factual allegations by way of deposition testimony from several witnesses. This led to inconsistencies in appellee's facts and thus made the case one which did not lend itself to disposition by a motion to dismiss since a motion to dismiss is ordinarily granted in a typical case only when all the relevant facts are clear.

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

Related

State v. Dixon
450 So. 2d 1280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
State v. Green
400 So. 2d 1322 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
State v. Shular
400 So. 2d 781 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
State v. Johnson
398 So. 2d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 So. 2d 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-power-fladistctapp-1979.