WILLIAM STEPHENSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case for sale of marijuana, but not for possession.
Appellant negotiated a marijuana sale with undercover officers, provided the funds for purchase, and his codefendant completed the delivery. Appellant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant appeals his convictions for sale and possession of marijuana alleging that the court erred in denying his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) Motion to Dismiss. We agree as to possession and reverse that conviction. We affirm the sale conviction.
The facts as admitted by the motion show that appellant and a codefendant named Tuck negotiated with two officers of the St. Petersburg Police Department for the sale of a pound of marijuana. Under the arrangement appellant and Tuck were to go to Sarasota to get the marijuana from a supplier. Their supplier required advance payment of the purchase price of $380. The officers handed the cash to Tuck at appellant’s request and left to return later for delivery of their purchase. When they returned two hours later to pick up the marijuana, Tuck delivered it to them. Appellant was not there.
We note that a charge of substantive crime may be proved by evidence of aiding and abetting. State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1971). Arrangement or participation in the sale of drugs is sufficient for an aiding and abetting conviction. State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975); State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We hold the above facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case against appellant for sale, and thus, sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(C)(4).
Appellant, however, is correct that nothing in the facts suggests he had actual or constructive possession of the marijuana. There is no indication that appellant had marijuana in his physical possession or ever did or could exercise control over it. See Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Thus, a prima facie case for possession was not shown and denial of the motion to dismiss was error. The judgment and sentence against appellant for sale of marijuana are affirmed; the judgment for possession is reversed and the sentence vacated.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAS v. State, 610 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…at Ras possessed the cocaine. We have looked at whether the evidence could support a conviction of aiding and [*26] abetting the purchase. An aider and abettor of a purchase does not necessarily aid and abet the possession. Cf. Stephenson v. State, 371 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1979); Kickasola v. State, 405 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (aiding and abetting a sale does not constitute aiding and abetting possession).1 We have…
-
Kickasola v. State, 405 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…as the defendant was not charged with the sale of methaqualudes. However, the law is clear that one is not guilty of possession by virtue of aiding and abetting a sale. Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). See also, Stephenson v. State, 371 So. 2d 554 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). [*202] There was no showing that the defendant had free access to the bedroom where the methaqualudes were located or that she had access to either the tool box in which the contraband was located or the key to open it. In this c…
-
L.J. v. State, 578 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…State, 179 So. 2d 873, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). . Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1979); DiSangro v. State, 422 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982, rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Stephenson v. State, 371 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Range v. State, 368 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). .Where, however, contraband drugs are not physically possessed by anyone, but are located on private premises jointly controlled and occupied by two or more people, such persons…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1975)
- Julian v. State, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)