ROBIN ANGEL AND RONALD BURT NICHOLS, APPELLANTS,
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 affirmed the judgments of guilty for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana.
Appellants were convicted of trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana following a joint trial. They were arrested by arresting …
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
[*293] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Robin Angel and Ronald B. Nichols from judgments of guilty of trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. It is a companion case to Priestly v. State, 450 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), opinion filed this date, and to Poynter v. State, 443 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), all appellants having been codefendants in a joint trial.
The first argument on appeal is that the state did not prove possession because the arresting officers, with whom the appellants were conducting the marijuana transaction, did not intend to allow appellants to leave the scene after appellants loaded the marijuana into the trunks of their cars. This argument has been resolved adversely to appellants in a decision we hereby follow. State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The second argument is the same as the tape recording argument raised in Priestly v. State, supra. We reject it for the reasons set forth in Priestly.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Priestly v. State, 450 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…convicted in a joint trial with Louis Poynter, whose conviction we reversed in Poynter v. State, 443 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Robin Angel and Ronald B. Nichols, whose appeal we decide in a separate opinion filed this date. Angel v. State, 450 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). A confidential informant introduced Pen-nie, a business partner of Priestly, Sr., to an undercover agent, Kridos. Pennie and Priestly, Sr., agreed to buy a large quantity of marijuana from Kridos and simultaneously resell it to…
-
Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…t err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The fact that arresting officers do not intend to let a defendant get away and therefore prevent him from leaving the scene does not preclude a finding of possession. Cf. Angel v. State, 450 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Stanley v. State, 451 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We consider Garces v. State to be inap-posite. There, the defendant had only momentary possession in the presence of the owner, for the sole purpose of examining the drugs i…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Priestly v. State, 450 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Poynter v. State, 443 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)