RAMON PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ramon Perez, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence: (1) was insufficient to show that he conspired to traffic in cocaine; and (2) supported his hypothesis of innocence.
The rule in reviewing the denial of a judgment of acquittal is to construe all facts, inferences, and conclusions against the movant. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974). Since a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence indicative of an overall plan, LaPolla v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and a jury is not required to accept or believe a defendants testimony or theory of defense, see Perez v. State, 517 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm appellant’s conviction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 610 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1992)…rted action, some criminal or unlawful act.” Boyd v. State, 389 So. 2d 642, 647 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The existence of a conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the participants or from circum [*1290] stantial evidence. See Perez v. State, 561 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1990). As summarized by the trial court: Timothy Robinson, Darrel Frazier, Bruce Frazier and Michael Coleman were residents of Miami, Florida, who supervised and were associated with a cocaine distr…
-
Rickie E. Wilder v. State, 587 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…v. State, 514 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1988); see also Gonzalez v. State, 455 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (both agreement and intention to conspire can be proved by circumstantial evidence); Perez v. State, 561 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1990) (conspiratorial agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence indicative of an overall plan). Finally, as this court stated in Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…
-
Spera v. State, 656 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…a. 2d DCA 1992); Jimenez v. State, 535 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). While mere presence at the scene is not enough to establish participation in a conspiracy, a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Perez v. State, 561 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA) rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1990). The state presented evidence in the instant case of an agreement and an intent to deliver twenty-eight grams of cocaine. Officer Michael Peasley of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office testified…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- LaPOLLA v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Perez v. State, 517 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)