CLIFFORD CUMMINGS, 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.
Clifford Cummings appealed his conviction for possession of less than five grams of cannabis, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions to dismiss and suppress. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence of constructive possession existed to survive the motion to dismiss and that the warrantless arrest was lawful under Florida's statute allowing arrests for larceny.
The trial court did not err in denying either motion. The facts that Cummings owned the car and that other occupants denied knowledge of the marijuana were sufficient to establish evidence upon which a jury could have convicted him of constructive possession. The warrantless arrest was lawful under Florida Statute Section 901.34, which authorizes police officers to arrest without a warrant any person for whom they have probable cause to believe has committed larceny.
[1] Knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance and the ability to maintain control over it are questions of ultimate fact for the jury, not subject to a motion to di…
[2] Ownership of a vehicle and the denial of knowledge of contraband by other occupants can be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case of c…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Knowledge is an ultimate fact question not subject to a motion to dismiss under Section 3.190(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Establishes that knowledge in constructive possession cases must be determined by a jury, not resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCannabis was found in Cummings' car, which he owned but was being driven by his brother. Four people were in the vehicle at the time it was stopped: C…
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 Joint Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of less than five grams of cannabis and reserved right to appeal. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the information and erred in denying his motion to suppress the contraband.
The cannabis was found in appellant’s car driven by appellant’s brother. There were four people in the car at the time appellant’s car was stopped: appellant, his brother, and two others. All of the occupants except appellant denied knowledge of the marijuana. Appellant made no comment. Appellant contends the facts fail to establish a prima facie case of constructive possession, to-wit, that appellant knew of the presence of a controlled substance and had the ability to maintain control over it. Appellants contend the facts establish joint possession of the trunk and not exclusive possession. Whether or not appellant had such knowledge must be inferred from the facts. Knowledge is an ultimate fact question not subject to a motion to dismiss under Section 3.190(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). It would have been for the jury to determine the credibility of the other occupants as to their denials.
The facts that the appellant owned the car and that the other occupants of the car denied knowledge of the marijuana were sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. These facts constitute evidence upon which the jury could have convicted appellant had the case gone to trial.
Appellant further contends the motion to suppress should have been granted because the arrest was illegal. The Quincy Department of Public Safety had advised the Chattahoochee Police Department to be on the lookout for this automobile because the occupants were suspected of having stolen gasoline pumped into the car. Appellant was shortly thereafter arrested in Chattahoochee as appellant’s car matched the description which included the Mississippi license number. Appellant contends this arrest was illegal, being a warrantless arrest committed outside the officer’s presence.
The language of Section 901.34, which pertains, is clear. Any police officer may arrest on or off the premises and without a warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed larceny in retail or wholesale establishments. Here the policeman had such probable cause.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Tucker v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Farrugia, 419 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
-
State v. Ferris Michele Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…iss. See State v. St. Jean, 658 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also State v. Savarino, 381 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The undisputed facts alleged in Paleveda’s motion to dismiss show that, at the time of her arrest, Paleveda was driving and otherwise in the exclusive possession and control of an automobile in which cocaine was found next to t…
-
Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…bable cause to arrest the defendant. See Whiteley, 401 U.S. at 568, 91 S.Ct. at 1037; Crawford; Salas. See also Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257, 1261 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980); Nelson v. State, 188 So. 2d 353 [*260] (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).6 It is undisputed that Parmenter, the Miami detective, had probable cause to arrest the defendant when he initiated the communic…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)