Camp v. State, 73--964
Decision Date | 19 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 73--964,73--964 |
Citation | 293 So.2d 114 |
Parties | Leonard J. CAMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Upon review of the record on appeal, and after a careful consideration of the briefs of the parties and oral argument, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the information. 1
Defendant, who was charged with the possession of narcotic drugs and barbiturates, filed a motion to dismiss the information pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), F.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A. The cited rule provides, inter alia, that the court may at any time entertain a motion to dismiss on the ground:
Defendant's sworn motion alleged that the defendant Did not have knowledge that the narcotics were on his premises nor did the defendant exercise exclusive control over the premises. Paragraph (d) of Rule 3.190, which permits the state to traverse or demur to a motion to dismiss, provides, inter alia, that: 'Factual matters alleged in a motion to dismiss Shall be deemed admitted unless specifically denied by the State in such traverse'.
In the case sub judice the state failed to file a motion to traverse. Accordingly, under the clear and plain language of the rule, defendant's factual allegations of lack of knowledge of the presence of the drugs on his premises are deemed admitted. 2 As this court pointed out in State v. Giesy, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 635, 636:
It is unquestioned that 'before one charged with unlawfully possessing narcotic drugs may be convicted, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused Knew of the presence of narcotic drugs on premises occupied and controlled by him, either exclusively or jointly with others'. Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla.App.1967), and Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 282. The material allegation in the information, i.e. possession, was disputed by the defendant's sworn motion sufficiently, so as to overcome the prima facie case established by the information; and unless traversed by the state in accordance with Rule 3.190(d), the factual matters contained in defendant's motion were admitted; became 'undisputed'; and established a valid defense to the charge.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicone v. State
...section 893.13(1)(f) is equally applicable to section 893.147.3 Numerous subsequent district court opinions, including Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 302 So.2d 413 (Fla.1974), and Doby v. State, 352 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), have held that knowledge of the ......
-
Wright v. State
...the burden of proof shifts to the state, the state's failure to file a traverse will mandate the granting of the motion. Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Ellis v. State, supra. Here the state neither traversed Wright's motion nor did it offer additional evidence. It in fact......
-
State v. News-Press Pub. Co.
...the uncontroverted facts would be insufficient to support a conviction, and that the indictment was properly dismissed. Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). BOARDMAN, Acting C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. ...
-
State v. Peavey, 75--534
...279 So.2d 41; Griffin v. State (Fla.App.4th, 1973), 276 So.2d 191. Also, c.f. Smith v. State (Fla.1973), 279 So.2d 27; Camp v. State (Fla.App.4th, 1974), 293 So.2d 114.2 See Zimmerman v. State (1938), 173 Tenn. 673, 122 S.W.2d 436; Puckett v. Commonwealth (1925), 210 Ky. 768, 276 S.W. 811; ......