State v. Pugh

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Pugh

350 So. 2d 89, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 1977

DocketNo. 76-2255

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 350 So. 2d 89 (State v. Pugh) 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. Pugh, 350 So. 2d 89, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the information.

Defendant was charged with unlawfully and fraudulently abandoning or refusing to redeliver a hired vehicle in contravention of Section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that there were no disputed material facts and that the undisputed facts failed to establish a prima facie case of defendant’s guilt within the contemplation of said section 817.52(3). The state filed a traverse and demurrer setting forth additional facts reflecting that defendant was not granted permission or authority to keep the hired vehicle beyond a certain return date. Based upon the rationale set forth in State v. Glesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) and Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), it is our opinion that the information adequately charged a crime under section 817.52(3), and that defendant’s motion to dismiss did not demonstrate the legal insufficiency of the information or reflect such matters as would exonerate him. State v. Giesy, supra.

Accordingly, the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss is reversed and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

MAGER, DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the information.

Defendant was charged with unlawfully and fraudulently abandoning or refusing to redeliver a hired vehicle in contravention of Section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that there were no disputed material facts and that the undisputed facts failed to establish a prima facie case of defendant’s guilt within the contemplation of said section 817.52(3). The state filed a traverse and demurrer setting forth additional facts reflecting that defendant was not granted permission or authority to keep the hired vehicle beyond a certain return date. Based upon the rationale set forth in State v. Glesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) and Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), it is our opinion that the information adequately charged a crime under section 817.52(3), and that defendant’s motion to dismiss did not demonstrate the legal insufficiency of the information or reflect such matters as would exonerate him. State v. Giesy, supra.

Accordingly, the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss is reversed and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

MAGER, DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 89, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pugh-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack