State v. BlancoState v. Blanco
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Jesus BLANCO, Lazaro Estevez and Angel Estevez Quintero, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*634 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Emilio de la Cal, Miami and Nathaniel L. Barone, Jr., South Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The final order dismissing the information in this cause under
"The State specifically denies that the material facts as presented in the Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss are the only facts upon which the State would rely during the State's case in chief."
It follows, given this traverse, that the trial court did not have before it all the material undisputed facts in the case and, accordingly, had no basis to conclude, as it did, that the material undisputed facts of the case did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.
The court stated in State v. Upton,
"The function of a `(c)(4)' motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether or not the facts which the State relies upon to constitute the crime charged, and on which it will offer evidence to prove it, do, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of guilt of the accused."
It is clear that where, as here, the facts as alleged in the sworn motion to dismiss under
Reversed and remanded.