State v. Puma

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Puma

430 So. 2d 515, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19639

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1630

StatusPublished

This text of 430 So. 2d 515 (State v. Puma) 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. Puma, 430 So. 2d 515, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19639 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order dismissing an information which charged Joseph Puma with maintaining a gambling house.

The State’s sworn traverse specifically denied appellee’s assertion that the State had no evidence of appellee’s ownership or control interest in the gambling premises, such interest or control being one of the essential elements of maintaining a gambling house along with habitual gambling on the premises with defendant’s knowledge and consent. Ferguson v. State, 377 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla.1979); Perlman v. State, 269 So.2d 385, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The State also filed a sworn demurrer in response to appellee’s amended motion to dismiss and recited specific instances and conduct of appellee that disputed appellee’s own sworn assertions of minimal contact with the gambling premises. The trial court erred when it granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the information. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) and (d); State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So.2d 376, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 419 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1982); Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 175 (Fla.1977).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss and remand this cause with directions to [516]*516reinstate the information and for a trial on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order dismissing an information which charged Joseph Puma with maintaining a gambling house.

The State’s sworn traverse specifically denied appellee’s assertion that the State had no evidence of appellee’s ownership or control interest in the gambling premises, such interest or control being one of the essential elements of maintaining a gambling house along with habitual gambling on the premises with defendant’s knowledge and consent. Ferguson v. State, 377 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla.1979); Perlman v. State, 269 So.2d 385, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The State also filed a sworn demurrer in response to appellee’s amended motion to dismiss and recited specific instances and conduct of appellee that disputed appellee’s own sworn assertions of minimal contact with the gambling premises. The trial court erred when it granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the information. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) and (d); State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So.2d 376, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 419 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1982); Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 175 (Fla.1977).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss and remand this cause with directions to [516]*516reinstate the information and for a trial on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 So. 2d 515, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-puma-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack