From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Fordham

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 14, 1985
465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-361.

March 14, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, William T. Swigert, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jack Singbush, P.A., Ocala, for appellee.


This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss a criminal charge. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) provides that a criminal charge will be dismissed if an accused files a sworn motion stating the facts as set out in the motion are undisputed, that they are the facts upon which the charge is based and that those facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.

As has been said clearly and often, the accused must swear to the motion. State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). Equally clear is that the trial court should not decide or reconcile disputed issues of fact raised by the state's traverse or inherent in the defendant's motion. State v. Fuller, 463 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Sheppard, 401 So.2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Pettis, 397 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton; State v. Featherolf, 388 So.2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Fort, 380 So.2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). All questions and inferences from the facts are resolved in favor of the state, like the non-moving party in a civil summary judgment proceeding. State v. Fuller; State v. Patel, 453 So.2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Raulerson, 403 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Green, 400 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Here the motion was not sworn to and the affidavit which appellee signed saying "To the best of my knowledge, based upon my reading of the above depositions, the facts and matters alleged in said motion are true and correct since they derive from the sworn statements of depositions in this cause" is not sufficient to satisfy the rule requirements. This declaration is nothing more than a non sequitur. Additionally, the oath of the accused must be based upon his own knowledge of the facts and not "upon information and belief." State v. Upton.

The order is reversed and this cause remanded for trial.

REVERSED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Fordham

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 14, 1985
465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

State v. Fordham

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. DAN FORDHAM, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 14, 1985

Citations

465 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. Gomez

The fact on which such motion is based should be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to."See State v.…

State v. Socarras

The provision in Rule 3.190(c)(4) that the motion must be sworn to requires the declarant to attest that the…