SYLVESTER JAMES, 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.
Sylvester James was convicted of trafficking in and conspiring to traffic in cocaine and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with a $250,000 fine on each count. On appeal, James argued the trial court erred in failing to find that entrapment was established as a matter of law, but the court affirmed, holding that James failed to preserve the entrapment issue for appeal by not raising it in a pretrial motion to dismiss or in his motions for judgment of acquittal.
The court held that because James failed to raise the objective entrapment defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or base his motions for judgment of acquittal on the entrapment defense, he did not preserve this issue for appeal. The court also rejected James's alternative argument that the evidence failed to establish his constructive possession of cocaine, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict.
[1] A defendant must preserve the defense of objective entrapment for appeal by raising it in a pretrial motion to dismiss or by basing a motion for judgment of acquittal on…
[2] A defendant's failure to properly raise the objective entrapment defense in the trial court precludes appellate review of that issue.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The defense of objective entrapment, as defined in Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985), focuses on whether police conduct falls below standards for proper use of governmental power, and is a threshold matter of law for the court to decide before the jury is given the issue of subjective entrapment, which focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.”
Establishes the two-part entrapment framework: objective entrapment (police conduct standard) is decided by the court as a threshold matter, while subjective entrapment (predisposition) is for the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames was arrested following a reverse sting operation in which he introduced a drug seller to a confidential informant and law enforcement officials …
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 Subjective Entrapment cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which he was convicted of trafficking in and conspiring to traffic in cocaine, and sentenced to 15 years incarceration with a $250,000 fine on each count. He contends the trial court erred in failing to find that the defense of entrapment was established as a matter of law. We find that because appellant failed to raise the defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or in his motions for judgment of acquittal, he did not preserve this issue for appeal, and we therefore affirm.
Appellant was arrested and charged with trafficking in and conspiring to traffic in cocaine following a reverse sting operation in which he introduced a drug seller to a confidential informant and law enforcement officials posing as drug buyers. The case was tried before a jury. Appellant raised the entrapment defense in his opening statement and elicited testimony relevant to the defense. At the close of the state and defense cases, appellant moved for judgments of acquittal, but argued in both instances only that the state had failed to make out a prima facie case against him. The court denied the motions, and the jury found appellant guilty as charged.
Appellant argues that the conduct of law enforcement officials and the confidential informant were such that entrapment was evident as a matter of law. The defense of objective entrapment, as defined in Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1985), focuses on whether police conduct falls below standards for proper use of governmental power, and is a threshold matter of law for the court to decide before the jury is given the issue of subjective entrapment, which focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. In Cruz, supra, the defendant properly raised the objective entrapment defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss. Appellant did not raise the threshold objective entrapment test in a pretrial motion to dismiss, nor did he base his motions for judgment of acquittal on the defense as did the defendant in Marrero v. State, 493 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because appellant did not properly raise the objective entrapment defense in the trial court for its determination, we find this issue was not preserved for appeal.
As to appellant’s argument that the evidence failed to establish his constructive possession of cocaine, we find there was sufficient evidence showing that appellant had actual knowledge of the presence of the cocaine to support the jury verdict. See Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 114 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ories of entrapment are “objective entrapment,” which concerns law enforcement conduct amounting to a denial of due process, and “subjective entrapment,” which focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. See James v. State, 525 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As to subjective entrapment, which is at issue in this case, “the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to being approached by Government agents.”…
-
Lanier v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…six, was that defense counsel failed to raise the issue of entrapment. Appellant’s argument appeared to be based on what is known as “subjective entrapment,” which focuses on whether appellant was predisposed to commit the crime. See James v. State, 525 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Appellant’s motion to amend stated that trial counsel knew there were witnesses whose testimony could show police misconduct which induced appellant to commit the crime. To the extent that appellant’s motion attempts to raise…
-
Fidel Rodriguez v. State, 688 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ent he now seeks to advance on appeal [based on L.J. v. State, 578 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)], we conclude that the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380(b); James v. State, 525 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Patterson v. State, 391 So. 2d 344, 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 3d DC…
Authorities Cited
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Marrero v. State, 493 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)