State v. Paleveda, 98-05003.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 745 So.2d 1026 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ferris Michele PALEVEDA, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 98-05003.,98-05003. |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1999 |
745 So.2d 1026
STATE of Florida, Appellant,v.
Ferris Michele PALEVEDA, Appellee
No. 98-05003.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
October 20, 1999.
Scott L. Robbins, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The State challenges an order which dismisses a cocaine possession charge against the appellee, Ferris Michele Paleveda. We reverse.
In February 1997, Paleveda was charged by information with possession of cocaine; driving while license suspended, canceled, or revoked; and unlawful use of a canceled license. Thereafter, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), Paleveda filed a motion to dismiss the cocaine charge, alleging that there were no disputed material facts and that the undisputed facts failed to establish a prima facie case of her guilt. The facts set forth in the motion indicated that, on January 27, 1997, Paleveda was stopped by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction, while driving a vehicle that did not belong to her. After it was determined that she was driving with a suspended license and that there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest for failure to appear in a case, she was arrested. A search incident to her arrest revealed a bag containing cocaine between the center console of the vehicle and the driver's seat. According to the motion, Paleveda made no statements "regarding any knowledge or possession of any narcotics."
No traverse was filed by the State in response to the motion to dismiss. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court dismissed the cocaine charge, finding that there was no proof that Paleveda knew of the presence of the contraband in the vehicle she was driving and, thus, there was no proof of possession. The State has filed a timely notice of appeal, contending that the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence of Paleveda's knowledge of the contraband to convict her of possession was a question for a trier of fact and was not otherwise properly resolved on a motion to dismiss. Paleveda argues that the State's failure to file a traverse specifically denying the facts of her motion to dismiss as the only facts of the case was fatal to the cocaine charge against her.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(d) provides only that the State "may" traverse a motion to dismiss; otherwise, factual matters asserted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shrader v. State, Case No. 2D13-2712
...simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal." Id. (quoting State v. Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ).It is important to note that in none of the foregoing cases cited by the majority did the reviewing courts hold that t......
-
Garcia v. State, No. 2D02-874.
...generally inferred or presumed from one's exclusive possession [of the automobile] unless and until proven otherwise." State v. Paleveda, 745 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court erred in dismissing cocaine possession charge where undisputed facts showed that defend......
-
Alderman v. Sec'y, Case No: 2:14-cv-336-FtM-38CM
...14); citing Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319, 323 (Fla. 1996); State v. Lewis, 463 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. Miller, 710 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed (Ex. ......
-
State v. Espinoza, No. 3D16-1860
...charges simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal." Id. (quoting State v. Paleveda, 745 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ). On a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion, the State is "entitled to the most favorable 264 So.3d 1069construction of the e......
-
Shrader v. State, Case No. 2D13-2712
...simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal." Id. (quoting State v. Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ).It is important to note that in none of the foregoing cases cited by the majority did the reviewing courts hold that t......
-
Garcia v. State, No. 2D02-874.
...generally inferred or presumed from one's exclusive possession [of the automobile] unless and until proven otherwise." State v. Paleveda, 745 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court erred in dismissing cocaine possession charge where undisputed facts showed that defend......
-
Alderman v. Sec'y, Case No: 2:14-cv-336-FtM-38CM
...14); citing Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319, 323 (Fla. 1996); State v. Lewis, 463 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. Miller, 710 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed (Ex. ......
-
State v. Espinoza, No. 3D16-1860
...charges simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal." Id. (quoting State v. Paleveda, 745 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ). On a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion, the State is "entitled to the most favorable 264 So.3d 1069construction of the e......