State v. Socarras

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Socarras

502 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 303, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

DocketNo. 86-9

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 31 (State v. Socarras) 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. Socarras, 502 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 303, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order under review granted defendants’ untraversed sworn motion to dismiss, on grounds of prosecutorial/governmental misconduct,¹ the information charging [32]*32them with one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

We affirm the dismissal order as to defendant Socarras upon a holding that the motion, which was properly sworn to by Socarras, established entrapment as a matter of law under the threshold objective test of Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).² Marrero v. State, 493 So.2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 831 (Fla.1986).

With respect to defendant Cabrera, however, we find that the order of dismissal was improperly entered because the motion as to this defendant was procedurally defective. Cabrera’s oath stated merely that the facts alleged in the motion were “true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.” (Emphasis supplied.) The provision in Rule 3.190(c)(4) that the motion must be sworn to requires the declarant to attest that the facts alleged are true, to his own knowledge, not that he believes they are true because someone else has told him so. State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see State v. Fordham, 465 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (oath of accused must be based upon his own knowledge of the facts and not “upon information and belief”); State v. Moore, 423 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (opining, in dicta, that defendant’s declaration the motion was “true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief” did not meet the rule’s requirement of a sworn motion and the defendant should have been required to attest to its truth, unqualifiedly) (e.s.); State v. Martin, 422 So.2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (noting that motion must be sworn to by one having direct knowledge of the facts asserted therein). Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal as to the charges against defendant Cabrera, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order under review granted defendants’ untraversed sworn motion to dismiss, on grounds of prosecutorial/governmental misconduct,¹ the information charging [32]*32them with one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

We affirm the dismissal order as to defendant Socarras upon a holding that the motion, which was properly sworn to by Socarras, established entrapment as a matter of law under the threshold objective test of Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).² Marrero v. State, 493 So.2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 831 (Fla.1986).

With respect to defendant Cabrera, however, we find that the order of dismissal was improperly entered because the motion as to this defendant was procedurally defective. Cabrera’s oath stated merely that the facts alleged in the motion were “true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.” (Emphasis supplied.) The provision in Rule 3.190(c)(4) that the motion must be sworn to requires the declarant to attest that the facts alleged are true, to his own knowledge, not that he believes they are true because someone else has told him so. State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see State v. Fordham, 465 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (oath of accused must be based upon his own knowledge of the facts and not “upon information and belief”); State v. Moore, 423 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (opining, in dicta, that defendant’s declaration the motion was “true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief” did not meet the rule’s requirement of a sworn motion and the defendant should have been required to attest to its truth, unqualifiedly) (e.s.); State v. Martin, 422 So.2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (noting that motion must be sworn to by one having direct knowledge of the facts asserted therein). Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal as to the charges against defendant Cabrera, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 303, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-socarras-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack