Dixon v. State, 112 So. 3d 721

Dixon appeals the trial court’s order withholding adjudication and imposing 18 months of probation after a negotiated plea to alprazolam and Adderall possession.
Dixon reserved appeal of the denial of her motion to dismiss the alprazolam charge.
The State charged two alprazolam tablets and seventy-two Adderall capsules; Dixon claimed the alprazolam prescription was valid and the Adderall belonged to her son.
Dixon moved to dismiss the alprazolam charge, supplying prescription evidence; the State filed a traverse alleging unverified information and an inability to verify the prescribing doctor.
Rule 3.190(d) requires a traverse to deny material facts with specificity; the traversal here offered only conclusory assertions and no evidence countering Dixon’s facts.
The court reversed in part: the alprazolam charge dismissal issue was decided in Dixon’s favor, while other aspects were affirmed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the traverse sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss?	Dixon: State failed to deny material facts with specificity.	Dixon: State’s traverse alleged unverified prescription but provided no counter-evidence.	Traverse insufficient; motion to dismiss should have been granted on this point.

State v. Yarn, 63 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (barest prima facie case standard; requires counter-evidence)
State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So.2d 110 (Fla.2000) (standard for testing motions to dismiss)
State v. Nunez, 881 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (defendant bears burden to detail undisputed facts)
Siegel, 778 So.2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (requirement for specific fact denial in traverses)