Jones v. State, TT-376
| Citation | 392 So.2d 18 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. TT-376,TT-376 |
| Parties | Willie JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Nancy A. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Willie Jones contends that his conviction for possession of a weapon by a state prisoner was erroneous because the metal pipe he had in his possession was not a weapon as defined by the statute and rule. We affirm.
Section 944.43, Florida Statutes (1979), provides:
Every prisoner committed to the custody of the department who, while in such custody, possesses or carries upon his person or has under his control any instrument or weapon of any kind or any explosive substance, contrary to any rule or regulation promulgated by the department, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, ...
Rule 33-3.06, F.A.C., the relevant rule of the Department of Corrections defines the prohibited instrument as one that is "customarily used or designed to be used as a dangerous weapon...."
Jones filed a motion to dismiss the information under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Fla.R.Crim.P., alleging that the object confiscated was a piece of metal pipe or tubing with a coupling mechanism at one end, that the object appeared to be a piece of machinery, and that it did not appear to be altered in any way from its original form of manufacture. Urging that the rule required a showing that the object was altered or modified in order for it to be "designed to be used as a dangerous weapon," the motion asserted that there were no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against Jones. We disagree.
The undisputed fact is that Jones, a state prisoner, was in possession of a metal pipe, but whether that pipe was customarily used or designed to be used as a dangerous weapon was a disputed fact, one which is properly resolved by the trier of fact and not to be resolved by a motion to dismiss. As stated in State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972):
The trial court may not try or determine factual issues in a summary judgment proceeding; nor consider either the weight of the conflicting evidence or the credibility of the witnesses in determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material facts; nor substitute itself for the trier of the fact and determine controverted issues of fact. (262 So.2d at 458)
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss the information.
The second error urged by Jones is that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. There are two prongs to this issue.
The first prong is that at the end of all the evidence Jones moved for judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hunwick, 83-1442
...are factual disputes that are properly to be resolved by the jury. State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). On a motion to dismiss, the state is entitled to a construction most fa......
-
State v. Hargrove, 89-0460
...are factual disputes that are properly to be resolved by the jury. State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). On a motion to dismiss, the state is entitled to a construction most fa......
-
State v. Sheppard
...considered on a (c)(4) motion, and the court must look only to the prima facie sufficiency of the alleged facts. Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. Bryant, 373 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. J. T. S., 373 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. West, 262 So.2d......
-
K.K. v. State, 97-3163
...its case is a matter for the trial court's discretion. See, e.g., Fitzhugh v. State, 698 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Dees v. State, 357 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA Over 100 years ago the Florida Supreme Court held that reopening a case for ad......