Case ID: so2d_559/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Sean RODGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 89-1043.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 10, 1990.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Kieran P. Fallon, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jorge Espinosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
    Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

It is settled that “all inferences on a motion to dismiss are to be resolved against the defendant.” State v. Adderly, 411 So.2d 981, 982 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). That being so, the trial court was entirely correct in denying the motion to dismiss, whether based on the contents of the motion and response thereto, or the trial court’s viewing of the defendant’s actions on the videotape, or both.

Affirmed.