CHARLES DAVID LAWSON, 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.
Charles Lawson appeals his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and certain probation conditions and court costs. The court affirmed the conviction but struck an improperly imposed probation condition and unsupported court costs.
The court affirmed the conviction because the jury could reasonably infer Lawson's knowledge of the paraphernalia from its proximity to his admitted gun, satisfying the constructive possession standard. The court reversed the portion of probation condition (5) that was imposed without oral announcement and struck the court costs and assessment lacking statutory authority.
[1] To prove constructive possession of drug paraphernalia, the state must establish that the defendant had dominion and control over the contraband, knew of its presence, an…
[2] A defendant moving for a judgment of acquittal admits all facts stated in the evidence and every favorable inference a jury might draw.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To prove possession of drug paraphernalia, the state must show that the appellant had in his possession drug paraphernalia and that he had knowledge of its presence.”
Establishes the statutory elements required for a drug paraphernalia possession conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice executed a search warrant at Lawson's house where he was present with two women, one of whom lived there and another who was his daughter until…
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 Independent Proof Of Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Charles Lawson contends that the trial court should have acquitted him on the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia, and that it erred in imposing certain probation conditions and court costs. We affirm the conviction, but strike a portion of probation condition (5) and the costs.
Lawson argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to show possession of drug paraphernalia. To prove possession of drug paraphernalia, the state must show that the appellant had in his possession drug paraphernalia and that he had knowledge of its presence. § 893.147(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because the appellant did not have actual possession of the contraband when the police searched his house, the state must show constructive possession by proving he had dominion and control over the contraband, knew of the presence of the contraband and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband. Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 716-717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
A defendant in moving for a judgment of acquittal, admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. The courts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law.
Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974).
At the time the search warrant was executed at his house, Lawson was present with two women. One of the women had been living in the house with him. Until two weeks before the search, his daughter had lived in the house. The officers found two copper screens used to smoke cocaine rock in a trophy bowl in the kitchen. They also found a small glass bottle in appellant’s gun cabinet near a gun Lawson admitted was his. The glass bottle had been altered for use as a crack cocaine pipe. Lawson denied knowledge of the contraband.
Because the premises where the contraband was found were in joint possession of the appellant, his knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership or possession but must be established by independent proof. Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Such proof may consist of incriminating statements and circumstances from which a jury might lawfully infer his actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband. 529 So. 2d at 347. The appellant’s knowledge of the presence of the paraphernalia could be inferred from its close proximity to the gun which he admitted was his. See Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Viewing the evidence most favorably to the state, the jury could infer Lawson’s knowledge of the presence of the contraband. See Lynch, 293 So. 2d 44. We, therefore, affirm the conviction.
We strike the first sentence of probation condition (5), a special condition, which was improperly imposed without oral announcement. See Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Chitty v. State, 661 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The $288.00 in court costs and $100.00 assessment to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement must also be stricken because no statutory authority was provided. Stallworth v. State, 640 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
THREADGILL, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. State, 152 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…(2013). Section 893.147(1) requires the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.M. used or had in his possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, and that M.M. had knowledge of the presence of the drug paraphernalia. See Lawson v. State, 666 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The State cannot establish the requisite intent without evidence linking the presence of an illegal substance to the alleged paraphernalia. See Goodroe v. State, 812 So. 2d 586, 587-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that a com…
-
Rolle v. State, 739 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lawson v. State, 666 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988); Lawson v. State, 319 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Stallworth v. State, 640 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Brown v. State, 661 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)