BERNARD D. SAFFORD, 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 held that the State failed to establish the requisite amount of cocaine for trafficking when individual packets of powder cocaine were commingled before testing. The conviction for trafficking was therefore improper.
[1] A conviction for trafficking in cocaine requires proof that the defendant possessed the requisite amount of cocaine, and the State must establish this quantitative elemen…
[2] The commingling and random testing of substances found in separate packets is impermissible when the substances are not uniform and could be mistaken for other substances…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State seized two bags of narcotics from the appellant's residence, one with rock cocaine and another with forty individually wrapped foil packets …
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 Trafficking In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for trafficking in cocaine by possessing twenty-eight or more grams of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). We agree with appellant’s argument on appeal, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to establish that he possessed the requisite amount of cocaine in order to be found guilty of trafficking. We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to reduce appellant’s conviction to simple possession of cocaine and to sentence appellant accordingly.
The evidence at trial showed that the State calculated the total weight of the contents of two bags of narcotics seized from appellant’s residence to meet the quantitative criteria of the trafficking statute. One bag contained rock cocaine and the other bag contained forty individually wrapped foil packets of alleged powder cocaine. The contents of the forty individual packets were combined by the investigating officer into one mixture so that it could be tested by the police chemist. Appellant correctly cites to Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) in support of his argument that such commingling was error. In Ross, the Third District held that random testing of suspect drugs found within a single packet is permissible as long as each packet is tested. In the instant ease, we conclude that the analysis performed on the random samples of rock cocaine was proper because all the material is similar in appearance and commingled in a single bag. See Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
The testing of the powder cocaine mixture, however, is distinguishable in that there are many white powdery substances which can resemble powder cocaine.
Therefore, the chemist’s failure to test each individual packet before the contents were combined and weighed mandates reversal. See Ross; Band v. State, 538 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989);
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
PARKER, C.J., and LENDERMAN, JOHN C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sheridan v. State, 850 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…KELLY, Judge, Dissenting. I would affirm Mr. Sheridan’s conviction. I have no quarrel with the majority’s statement that in Safford, 708 So. 2d 676, this court, relying on Ross v. State, 528 [*643] So. 2d 1237 (holding that the State failed to prove a prima facie case of trafficking where it tested only two out of ninety-two packets of white powder resembling cocaine), disapproved the practice…1 / 2
-
Baron Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2013)…ecision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), as well as the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Sheridan v. State, 850 So. 2d 638 [*217] (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Safford v. State, 708 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 8(b)(4), Fla. Const. FACTS On April 29, 2009, Detective Donald Bishop and other officers from the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office executed a search, warrant at a Jacksonville residence. As the offic…
-
Gaston v. State, 721 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ained in the court file. However, the trial court failed to attach a copy of this probable cause affidavit to its order. Therefore, we have no choice but to reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Tranquille v. State, 708 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). On remand, if the trial court again denies Ga-ston’s motion, it shall attach to its order all portions of the record upon which it relies. Reversed and remanded. ' CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Safie v. Safie, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bond v. State, 538 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)