STATE v. TEEHAN, 557 So.2d 89 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1990)

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. EDWARD TEEHAN, APPELLEE.

No. 88-3022.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
February 6, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Alfonso C. Sepe, J.

Page 90

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Anita Gay, and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.

LEVY, Judge.

Edward Teehan, the defendant, was charged by Information with attempted burglary of a vehicle. The defendant filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss alleging that the disputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against him. At the hearing on this motion the trial court, without objection from the defense, allowed the State to orally proffer the contents of its traverse, with the understanding that the State would actually file its written traverse the next day. The State filed its written traverse the next day specifically denying certain factual allegations contained in the defendant’s motion, and alleging some additional facts. The trial court then granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the State appeals.

We agree with the State that the defendant waived any alleged untimeliness of the traverse. This is so because the defendant failed to object to the oral proffer and also failed to object to the procedure, specifically approved by the trial court, whereby the court allowed the State to file its written traverse the following day and stated that it would delay ruling until that time.

We also agree with the State that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The record demonstrates that the State’s traverse specifically denied material allegations in the defendant’s motion to dismiss and thus the motion should have been denied and the cause submitted to the trier-of-fact. See State v. McQuay, 403 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Schular, 400 So.2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Horne, 399 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Johnson, 398 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 557 So.2d 89

Recent Posts

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-03 (Oct. 20, 2025)

State Attorney Staff Firearm Possession in Courtrooms Number: AGO 2025-03 Issued: October 20, 2025 Ed…

4 weeks ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-02 (Oct. 20, 2025)

Certain Professional Firearm Regulations after McDaniels Number: AGO 2025-02 Issued: October 20, 2025 The Honorable…

4 weeks ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2025-01 (June 11, 2025)

Moving the dates of Municipal Elections absent voter approval Number: AGO2025-01 Issued: June 11, 2025…

4 weeks ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-04 (10/30/2023)

Sunshine Law – Search and Selection Committees Number: AGO2023-04 Issued October 30, 2023 Rachel Kamoutsas…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-03 (10/02/2023)

Firearms - Definitions Number: AGO2023-03 Issued October 02, 2023 Representative Shane Abbott Florida House of…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2023-02 (07/21/2023)

Clerk’s sale of court-ordered debts to debt purchasers Number: AGO 2023-02 Issued July 21, 2023…

1 year ago