HENRY WILLIAMS, 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.
Appellant Williams challenges his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis found during a search of his apartment, which he shared with another occupant. The court affirmed the cocaine conviction but reversed the cannabis conviction due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge and control over the drug found in a room occupied by another person.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish possession of cocaine based on the location of drug paraphernalia in Williams's bedroom and kitchen, the wet scales and sifter, and cocaine residue in the drain water, all suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish possession of cannabis because it was concealed in a room occupied by another individual without proof of Williams's exclusive access, knowledge, or control.
[1] Evidence of knowledge of and ability to control contraband may be established by exclusive access to the area where the contraband is found, or by other incriminating cir…
[2] Circumstances suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence, coupled with the discovery of contraband in open view and associated items in a bedroom, may be sufficient to est…
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“Since appellant was not the sole occupant of the apartment the state's proof of possession must show appellant's knowledge of and ability to control the contraband.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving possession in shared residences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers executed a search warrant at Williams's upstairs apartment. In the kitchen, they found scales, baggies with white powdered residue, and water…
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 Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of judgments of conviction and sentences for possession of cannabis and cocaine. We find that there was adequate evidence as to appellant’s possession of cocaine, but the evidence was insufficient to establish appellant’s possession of cannabis.
Appellant occupied an upstairs apartment with an entrance at the bottom of a stairway. A warrant was obtained to search the apartment and the officer executing the warrant announced his presence at the downstairs entrance. Appellant did not immediately respond, and the officer heard noises inside the apartment. Appellant then appeared at the door and accompanied the officer up the stairway into the living area of the apartment. Weighing scales and three plastic baggies containing a white powdered residue were found beside the kitchen sink. The scales and a sifter in the sink were both wet, and a small amount of residue was found in the holes of the sifter. Water was removed from the drain pipe below the sink and saved for analysis. Three more baggies with residue were found in appellant’s bedroom. The other bedroom in the apartment was decorated as a den and was occupied by another individual at the time of the search. A box containing cannabis was found under a couch in this room.
Since appellant was not the sole occupant of the apartment the state’s proof of possession must show appellant’s knowledge of and ability to control the contraband. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983), cert. denied 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Such proof may be based upon exclusive access to the area where the contraband is found, or other incriminating circumstances. See Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Spata-ro, supra. Laboratory analysis revealed that the water from appellant’s kitchen drain contained cocaine. The residue from one of the plastic baggies was also analyzed and established as cocaine. Items associated with this contraband were found in appellant’s bedroom and in open view in the kitchen under conditions suggesting an attempt to destroy the evidence. These circumstances are sufficient to permit a conclusion that appellant had knowledge of and ability to control the cocaine.
However, the cannabis was not discovered in open view or in a location to which it was proved that appellant had exclusive access. Rather, this contraband was concealed within a container underneath a couch in a room being occupied by another individual. The circumstances do not show appellant’s knowledge of or ability to control the cannabis, and thus do not establish possession of this contraband. See Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also, Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. We reverse the judgment of conviction, and vacate the sentence, for possession of cannabis.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaines v. State, 706 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
-
State v. Becker, 559 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…physical possession of the [C]oca-[C]ola can.” These statements are insufficient to negate constructive possession. Cf. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1989). We find inapposite those circumstances in which a person charged with constructive possession is not the occupant. See Brooks v. State, 501 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here the contrab…
-
Warren v. State, 658 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…paraphernalia because the state faded to establish a prima facie case on either charge. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983); Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1973); Moffatt v. State, 583 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Hall v. State, 382 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). ERVIN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Strickland v. Roosevelt Cnty. Rural Elec. Coop., 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Sena v. United States, 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)