WALTER GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Deliver Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from convictions for delivery, possession and conspiracy to deliver cocaine. There is ample evidence to support the convictions for sale and possession. There is inadequate evidence to support the conspiracy conviction. The conspiracy statute says:
Whoever agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy ...
The state proved that an informant walked up to Burley and asked him if he was selling cocaine. He said no and took him to Gray. The informant handed money to Burley who handed it to Gray who handed cocaine to Burley who handed it to the informant. Gray and Burley were then arrested. There was no proof of any prearrangement, any prior discussions or plans or anything else done in preparation for the above events. No proof they conspired together to commit the crime or did anything other than engage in the one transaction.
This absence of proof requires that this court reverse the judgment of conviction for conspiracy.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
George v. State, 208 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…to have obtained the drugs from another, then “every person who sold drugs would also be guilty of conspiracy on the rationale that he must have gotten it from someone else.” Id. As to Appellant conspiring with Graham, our opinion in Gray v. State, 526 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), is instructive. In Gray, the State proved at trial that an informant walked up to an individual named Burley and asked him if he was selling cocaine, 526 So. 2d at 1021. Burley said no and took the informant to Gray. Id. The inf…
-
Racheal Gould v. State, 251 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…her expressly or impliedly in any preplanning. See Rodriquez v. State , 643 So. 2d 111, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that evidence of defendant's actions as driver and knowledge of drug deal were insufficient to prove conspiracy); Gray v. State , 526 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding there was no conspiracy when there "was no proof of any prearrangement, any prior discussions or plans or anything else done in preparation"); Ashenoff v. State , 391 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding tha…
-
Racheal Gould v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)