ROBERT PRESSLEY, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Robert Pressley's conviction for possession of cocaine and marijuana, finding the state failed to prove Pressley's knowledge of the drugs found in a car he jointly possessed with his sister. The court held that knowledge of contraband in jointly possessed areas cannot be inferred and must be established by other proof.
The court reversed Pressley's conviction, holding that the state failed to sufficiently establish Pressley's knowledge of the illegal drugs. When contraband is found in an area of only joint possession, knowledge of the contraband and ability to maintain control cannot be inferred but must be established by other proof.
[1] In cases of joint possession, knowledge of the presence of contraband and the ability to maintain control over it cannot be inferred and must be established by other proo…
[2] A defendant's knowledge of contraband found in a jointly possessed vehicle is not sufficiently established when the contraband is small in quantity and found in a locatio…
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 intelligence“If an area is only in a defendant's joint possession, his knowledge of the presence of contraband and his ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred but must be established by other proof.”
The foundational legal rule applied in this case, establishing that knowledge cannot be presumed in jointly possessed areas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice approached Pressley's car at night after smelling marijuana. Officers found a single rock of cocaine measuring 1/16th of an inch and weighing o…
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 Joint Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Chief Judge.
We reverse Defendant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was error, as the state failed to prove that Defendant had knowledge of the presence of contraband found in a car which Defendant jointly possessed. Although the car was his sister’s, Defendant, the driver, was the primary user. There were two passengers in the car with Defendant at the time of the arrest. If an area is only in a defendant’s joint possession, his knowledge of the presence of contraband and his ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred but must be established by other proof. See Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), approved, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983).
The investigating officer approached Defendant’s car at night and noticed the smell of marijuana. He shined a flashlight into the car and illuminated a particle of rock cocaine measuring only l/16th of an inch, and weighing only .05 grams. It was located in a seam on the driver’s side of the front bench seat of the car, where the back and the seat meet. Small amounts of marijuana residue and seeds were also found on the floor of the car. Food particles were scattered throughout the car, including remnants from a hamburger, french fries, potato chips, peanut shells, and various crumbs. When the light focused on the area where the cocaine was found, Defendant indicated that he thought the substance was part of a potato chip. However, we do not deem this comment as indicative of guilty knowledge given this setting.
We find that the state failed to sufficiently establish Defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the illegal drugs. This and other courts have refused to find constructive possession where there were even more incriminating factors than those in the instant ease. See In Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (rock cocaine found between the driver’s seat where defendant was seated and center hump); Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (defendant was found sitting in chair where two cocaine rocks were located between seat cushion and armrest and another on ground under chair); McClain v. State, 559 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (bag containing marijuana found in close proximity to defendant; pipe on console between automobile’s bucket seats; two “roaches.” and a roach clip in the ashtray; and the odor of marijuana); D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (odor of burning marijuana, half burned marijuana cigarette on the floor next to defendant and on the floor by the driver’s seat, marijuana cigarette found in ashtray and in glove com partment, and numerous marijuana seeds in seats); Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (almost a handful of marijuana scattered over the deck where defendant was located).
We recognize that there are circumstances in which the amount or location of contraband on or about a seat is sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge. See Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (conviction for possession of cocaine supported by bits of crack cocaine found in seat of car recently vacated by defendant due to position and manner in which cocaine was arranged; had defendant been unaware of them, they most likely would have been brushed aside when defendant got into and out of the seat). However, such is not the case in this instance.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earle v. State, 745 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…circumstantial evidence of constructive possession does not rise to the level of that found insufficient to sustain a conviction in Green and McClain. The cocaine was not in plain sight, but was concealed behind a door panel. See Pressley v. State, 712 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The vehicle was owned by Earle’s wife. Earle and Green did not attempt to elude the police. Cf. State v. St. Jean, 658 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). No illegal drugs were in the defendants’ actual possession or in…
-
Auline Thomas v. State, 743 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…en with some marijuana particles inside of it, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that would support a finding that Thomas had knowledge of its presence and/or illicit nature. As such, we hold reversal is required. See Pressley v. State, 712 So. 2d 1240, 1240-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(revers-ing conviction of possession of cocaine and marijuana where state did not establish Pressley’s knowledge of the presence of the illegal drugs); In the Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(hold…
-
J.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…the cocaine. The state, however, established only appellant’s proximity to the glue tube containing the cocaine. This alone failed to establish that appellant knew about the presence of the contraband or of its illicit nature. See Pressley v. State, 712 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(discussing that state failed to establish defendant’s knowledge of illegal drugs where small particle of crack cocaine and marijuana residue were found in car); McClain v. State, 559 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(coneluding that…
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
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- In the Interest of D. J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Cash v. State, 412 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- McCLAIN v. State, 559 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)