State v. Pastorius, 82-134
| Decision Date | 22 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-134,82-134 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Debra Morris PASTORIUS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Michael Brodsky, Miami, for appellee.
Debra Morris Pastorius was charged by Information with delivery of cannabis. She filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, on the basis that there were no disputed material facts and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt.
Appellee's motion alleged the following facts. Undercover police officers and co-defendant Bradley Pastorius, husband of appellee, met between their cars in a parking lot. The officers' car was parked twenty feet from and on the driver's side of the other automobile. The officers and Bradley Pastorius discussed the purchase of marijuana. The conversation was not loud. Appellee, Debra Pastorius, remained in the passenger seat of her car. During the conversation, appellee got out of her car and asked her husband "Should I go get Tom?" Bradley replied, "Yeah, go get Tom." Appellee then walked out of view. Shortly thereafter, a blue van drove up and parked beside the officers' vehicle. Appellee exited the passenger's side of the van and walked to her car. The driver of the van, co-defendant Thomas Bernardi, exited the vehicle, opened the sliding passenger door and showed police officers a large green nontransparent plastic bag located on the floor behind the passenger seat. The officers opened the bag and saw within it numerous smaller bags of marijuana. Bradley Pastorius, Bernardi, and appellee were then arrested.
The state filed a sworn traverse admitting the facts but claiming that it would "prove through circumstantial evidence that the defendant, Debra Pastorius, knew that she was aiding and abetting Bradley Pastorius and Thomas Bernardi in the delivery of cannabis."
To be sufficient, a 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss must allege that the material facts of the case are undisputed, set out those facts, and demonstrate that the undisputed facts fail to establish a prima facie case (or that they affirmatively establish a valid defense). If the undisputed facts as alleged in the motion do not meet this burden, then a response from the state is unnecessary and the motion may be summarily denied. If, however, the allegations do meet the test, then the burden shifts to the state. Under the latter circumstance, in order to avoid the effect of the motion, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patel, 83-626
...and function of the court, whether it is in the context of a directed verdict, or in ruling on a (c)(4) motion. 1 See State v. Pastorius, 419 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). I agree with the majority that only a prima facie case need be shown by the state in the context of a (c)(4) motion. ......
-
State v. Hart, 95-1188
...the evidence, the court must draw all inferences in favor of the state and against the defendant. E.g., State v. Pastorius, 419 So.2d 1137, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The trial court may neither weigh conflicting evidence nor pass on the credibility of witnesses nor determine disputed issues......
-
State v. Sammons
...to support a dismissal, a response from the State is unnecessary and the motion may be summarily denied. State v. Pastorius, 419 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Brinkley, 874 So.2d at If the motion shows that the facts relied on by the State fail to show a prima facie case of......
-
State v. Duque, 84-1490
...by a defendant do not meet that burden, then a response from the state is unnecessary and the motion must be denied. State v. Pastorius, 419 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). On a 3.190(c)(4) motion, the trial court may not weigh the evidence, but all inferences must be resolved against the d......