MARIO LOPEZ ROBINSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's marijuana trafficking conviction based on circumstantial evidence of his ownership of drug-laden boats found washed ashore, rejecting his claims of evidentiary error.
Circumstantial evidence that defendant owned marijuana-laden boats found washed ashore shortly after a reported air drop in the Bahamas was sufficient to support a trafficking conviction, even though defendant was not shown to be physically present on the boats.
[1] Circumstantial evidence of ownership of drug-laden vessels found washed ashore is sufficient to support a marijuana trafficking conviction without proof that the defendan…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo marijuana-laden boats owned by defendant were discovered washed ashore on the Florida coast shortly after a reported air drop of marijuana in the …
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 Trafficking In Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in marijuana. Defendant asserts that the state’s case against him was composed entirely of circumstantial evidence, that the court made numerous errors on evidentiary matters, and in regard to the order of closing argument. While it is true that most of the state’s evidence was of a circumstantial nature, we find that evidence to be most compelling and convincing. Two marijuana-laden boats owned by defendant were found washed ashore on the Florida coast shortly after a reported air drop of marijuana in the Bahamas. Substantial evidence was presented as to the defendant’s direct involvement in the trafficking scheme although it was never shown that he was actually on one of the boats while it traversed the ocean. Such evidence was not necessary. The evidence presented by the state was completely consistent with guilt and totally inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Pinder v. State, 366 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), approved 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1979), and Green v. State, 408 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We have reviewed all other allegations of error and find them to be without merit. The defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Voto v. State, 509 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…nclusion that the evidence is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. There was substantial proof refuting appellant’s contention that he was ‘just, along for the ride’. See Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1982); Robinson v. State, 438 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Buenoano v. State, 478 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1987). There was substantial competent proof of appellant’s intentional participation as an aider and abettor. He is, therefore, a principa…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)
- Green v. State, 408 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Pinder v. State, 366 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)