G.T.L., A CHILD., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for cannabis possession, finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession where the drug was found under the defendant's bookbag on school property.
Constructive possession of cannabis may be established when the defendant knew the drug was within his presence, knew its illicit nature, and had sole or shared dominion over it.
[1] Constructive possession of a controlled substance requires proof that the defendant knew of the drug's presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had sole or shared domini…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.T.L., a juvenile, was found with a bag of cannabis under his bookbag while sitting with two other boys on school property. He testified the cannabis…
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 Knowledge Of Illicit Nature cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
G.T.L. (defendant) appeals his adjudication of delinquency and sentence of community control which were entered by the trial court after he was found guilty of possession of cannabis.1 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We disagree and therefore affirm.
In his motion for judgment of acquittal, defendant argued that the state failed to prove that he had constructive possession of a bag containing cannabis which was discovered under his bookbag as he and two other boys sat near one another on school property. At the delinquency hearing, defendant testified that the cannabis was not his and that he did not know why it was located under his bookbag. The trial court determined that defendant’s testimony was not credible and the state had presented sufficient testimony to prove defendant’s constructive possession of the cannabis. The instant record supports the trial court’s ruling that the state established that defendant knew the cannabis was within his presence, knew the illicit nature of the cannabis, and that he had sole or shared dominion over it. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983). See also S.W. v. State, 431 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we affirm.
JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Slat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ck and wallet owned by E.H.A.; E.H.A. was not in proximity to the contraband when it was discovered and there was no indepen [*1040] dent evidence that he was aware of the contraband’s presence in his backpack. Id. In contrast, in G.T.L. v. State, 710 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), G.T.L. was arrested after a bag of cannabis was discovered under his book bag, which was near two other book bags, while he stood nearby with two other boys. G.T.L. testified that the cannabis was not his and that he did not kno…
-
R.W.G. v. State, 812 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. See G.T.L. v. State, 710 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). AFFIRMED. COBB, SHARP, W., and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Strickland v. Roosevelt Cnty. Rural Elec. Coop., 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Sena v. United States, 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- S.W. v. State, 431 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)