State v. Hunwick, 83-1442

Decision Date29 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-1442,83-1442
Citation446 So.2d 214
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Patti Lynn HUNWICK, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marlyn J. Altman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Harry Gulkin of Varon, Bogenschutz, Williams & Gulkin, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.


The state appeals the trial court's dismissal of a criminal information. Patti Lynn Hunwick was charged by information together with two other defendants with trafficking in cannabis. Ms. Hunwick filed a sworn motion to dismiss, the state traversed, and the trial court denied Ms. Hunwick's motion. After the charges against a codefendant were dismissed, and while under use immunity, he gave the state a sworn statement, some of which tended to exonerate Ms. Hunwick. Ms. Hunwick filed a supplemental sworn motion to dismiss incorporating excerpts from the former codefendant's statement. The state again traversed. The court dismissed the information, having found there was no dispute as to material facts and the state had failed to make out a prima facie case of constructive possession against Ms. Hunwick.

Ms. Hunwick's sworn motion and the state's traverse showed agreement as to many material facts. However, the state denied Ms. Hunwick's representation that she had never had control of the boat of which she was an occupant when she and it were apprehended and a large cache of marijuana was found aboard. The state denied further that Ms. Hunwick had no conversation with them after her arrest and that she lacked the knowledge and control requisite to the marijuana possession offense. To support what it contends was its prima facie case against Ms. Hunwick, the state pointed to the following facts: Ms. Hunwick had checked into a Bimini hotel two days before the arrest, and had rented rooms for a group of people including her two codefendants; Ms. Hunwick had arrived at the hotel in a speed boat of the same size and make as the boat that was seized, and the statement of her codefendant, the boat operator, when the boat was stopped, that the group had been fishing, was inconsistent with the condition of the fishing equipment aboard; an officer's observation of a hollow sound forward and of fresh caulking indicated there was a secret, newly constructed compartment; the boat fled when the boat occupants were invited to go to the coast guard station; the officers' chase of the boat ended only when an officer shot out the engine; between the disablement of the boat and the officers' reboarding, Ms. Hunwick retrieved an object from the forward hold which the boat operator threw overboard; when an officer opened the hold he at once smelled marijuana and saw bales of it; seventeen bales, weighing over 450 pounds were recovered from the boat, and Ms. Hunwick told law enforcement officers she knew the boat operator well and had been with him the past several days in Bimini. In its second traverse the state denied every allegation of Ms. Hunwick's supplemental motion to the effect she had no knowledge or control of the marijuana, nor control of the boat.

Ms. Hunwick's sworn motion for dismissal and supplemental motion for dismissal were pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ms. Hunwick contended there were no material disputed facts, and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against her.

Rule 3.190(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is understood to state a sworn motion to dismiss under (c)(4) must be denied if the state has filed a sworn traverse which with specificity denies a material fact or facts contained in the motion to dismiss. State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1982). Like summary judgment motions in civil cases, Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions should be granted rarely, for in most cases there 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 favorable to it; all inferences are resolved against the defendant. State v. Green, 400 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla....

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Gensler
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 2006
    ...Jalbert v. State, 906 So.2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Pasko, 815 So.2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(citing State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). A motion to dismiss should rarely be granted, State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and granted only wh......
  • State v. Knapstad
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1986
    ...Accord, State v. Lewis, 463 So.2d 561 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985); State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984). These two procedures, with some slight modification, contain the necessary and desired safeguards and still serve the ......
  • State v. Ortiz, 3D99-2761.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 2000
    ...motion to dismiss, all questions and inferences from the facts must be resolved in favor of the state."); State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that "[o]n a motion to dismiss, the state is entitled to a construction most favorable to it; all inferences are resolv......
  • State v. Slifer
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1984
    ...that it should be prevented from prosecuting. State v. Pentecost, 397 So.2d 711, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). ADMISSIBILITY OF On this issue, I write only to clarify my views as to the reasons why the trial court's order granting the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT