CARL JOSEPH LAMANTO, 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 a conviction for trafficking in cocaine, finding that the defendant had possession of the drugs even though they were owned and supplied by the police.
The court held that the defendant's actions constituted possession sufficient for a trafficking conviction, despite the police retaining ultimate control over the drugs.
The defendant was arrested after negotiating to purchase and paying for cocaine, which was supplied and controlled by police officers who had the defe…
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 Dominion And Control cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm the defendant’s conviction of trafficking in cocaine. The defendant asserts that he was not in possession of the cocaine because he did not have dominion and control over it, citing Garces v. State, 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Here, the defendant negotiated with an undercover detective to purchase a kilo of cocaine. They agreed upon terms and met in the detective’s car. Lamanto handed thirty two thousand dollars, the agreed price, to the detective, who in exchange handed the defendant a bag containing the cocaine. Lamanto cut open the bag, placed some cocaine on his finger, and tasted it. He then placed the cocaine inside his tote bag and closed it. The door was opened and the defendant was in the process of stepping out of the car when he was arrested.
This evidence was sufficient to prove actual possession. The trial court did not 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 inapposite. There, the defendant had only momentary possession in the presence of the owner, for the sole purpose of examining the drugs in order to determine that they were what they were purported to be. Here, the defendant had the right to possession and control and physically exercised that right.
We also find no error in the denial of defendant’s requested jury instruction.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction because I believe that is a correct result under the prevailing law. The appellant has presented an interesting point, however. He contends, with some logic, that he never really had dominion and control over the drugs in question, because the drugs were owned and produced by the police, and the police never intended to let him leave the car with the drugs. Indeed, armed police officers had the car, the drags, and appellant within their “control” at all times. In reality, the appellant was guilty of purchasing illegal drags, an offense I believe the legislature contemplated under the trafficking statute despite the lack of the word “purchase” in the statute. Ordinarily, a purchaser takes “possession” of the drugs he pays for and that “possession” is sufficient, in my view, to constitute a violation of the trafficking statute. It is that possession that appellant, the purchaser, had here when he was arrested.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramsubhag v. State, 937 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ircumstances where a defendant tests or tastes the substance to see if it was what it was purported to be, a case about marijuana smoke ingested from a pipe, and one case about asportation of a dead cow to support a larceny charge. Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (tasting cocaine); State v. Eckroth, 238 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1970) (marijuana smoke); Driggers v. State, 96 Fla. 232, 118 So. 20 (1928) (cow asportation); Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (fingerprint on can containi…
-
Aleida Amaya v. State, 782 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…udes temporary possession for the purpose of verification or testing, irrespective of dominion or control.” Moreover, the facts sub judice are simply distinguishable from Garces. Here, the evidence established a completed sale. See Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(distinguishing Garces where drug purchase had been completed). Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.…
-
Mansell v. State, 596 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Campbell v. State, 577 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1991), and Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), cause dismissed, 557 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1990). ANSTEAD, DELL and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Drugs, Inc. v. H.S.I. Support Sys., Inc., 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Garces v. State, 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Stanley v. State, 451 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Angel v. State, 450 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)