EDDIE R. MAULL, 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 affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences for drug possession but remanded for correction of the written judgment regarding the drug paraphernalia charge.
Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. Police observed suspicious behavior in a parking lot, leading to a s…
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 Possession Of Heroin cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for possession of heroin, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of an error in the written judgment.
As to defendant’s first point on appeal, we find that the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia which police officers seized upon stopping the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger and seeing the items in plain view. The defendant’s actions of being dropped off at night in a parking lot, where he stood in the shadows, crouched behind parked cars when any car drove by, and appeared to the observing officer to be nervous and agitated, before being picked up by the same car that had dropped him off gave the officer a basis for a founded and reasonable suspicion of defendant’s involvement in criminal activity. See Tamer v. State, 484 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1986).
As to defendant’s second point on appeal, we agree (as does the state) that defendant’s conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1985), was mistakenly entered on the judgment of conviction as a third-degree felony rather than a first-degree misdemeanor. The sentence imposed for this charge was appropriate for a first-degree misdemeanor. Accordingly, defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed, but the cause is remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment concerning the paraphernalia charge.
RYDER, A.C.J., SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.), J., concur.