STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH DICKERSON, 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 held that the stipulated facts were sufficient to raise a question for the fact finder regarding actual or constructive possession of cocaine, and thus the trial court erred in dismissing the charge.
Police observed the defendant and others near a house where drug transactions appeared to be occurring. The defendant stood in one spot for 45 minutes…
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 Actual Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Kenneth Bernard Dickerson was charged with possession of cocaine.1 The State of Florida appeals an order dismissing the charge. We conclude that the court erred in dismissing the charge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
At the hearing on Mr. Dickerson’s motion,2 both parties stipulated to the relevant facts. Mr. Dickerson was standing near a house with several other men at 8:55 p.m. The police observed one of the men approaching cars under circumstances that looked like drug transactions. The police watched Mr. Dickerson stand in one position with this group for forty-five minutes. When they approached the group, they discovered that Mr. Dickerson was standing on a plastic bottle containing 83 pieces of rock cocaine.
Mr. Dickerson argued that the question presented was whether he had constructive possession of the cocaine. The state argued that he had actual possession. The trial court held:
I think it is clearly a case of constructive possession and I think it’s, um, as a matter of law that the motion is well taken. So I’m going to grant the Motion to Dismiss.
We conclude the stipulated facts were sufficient to raise as a question for the fact finder whether Mr. Dickerson had actual or constructive possession of the cocaine. Therefore, we hold the trial court erred in dismissing the charge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed; remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . § 893.13(1)©, Fla.Stat. (1991).
. The motion was styled a motion to suppress. However, it was treated by the parties and the court as a motion to dismiss based on stipulated facts. Thus, any technical deficiencies were waived. Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ladrig, 707 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…of a drug is usually an ultimate question that the jury must decide on factual inferences and is not subject to a motion to dismiss under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4). See State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also State v. Dickerson, 634 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). This case presented no exceptional facts that would make this general rule inapplicable. Therefore, the factual issue as to whether appellee knew the package contained a controlled substance was one for the jury to decide. Accor…
-
Hampton v. State, 680 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…n’s knowledge of the presence of the drugs in his car was one for the jury. Gartrell v. State, 626 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993); Strachn v. State, 661 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Dickerson, 634 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Ferron v. State, 619 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Green v. State, 602 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA); review denied, 613 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1992); State v. Duran, 550 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the trial court properly d…
Authorities Cited
- Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)