ALBERTO MARTINEZ ORTEGA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
In an Anders proceeding, the court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and trafficking in cocaine where no non-frivolous appellate argument was available.
No non-frivolous position is advanceable on behalf of the defendant, and therefore convictions for conspiracy and cocaine trafficking are affirmed.
[1] Possession of cocaine for purposes of verification or testing constitutes possession under Florida Statute § 893.02(16), creating a statutory exception to the common law…
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 intelligence“direct proof of an agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury is free to infer from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed”
Establishing conspiracy requires only circumstantial evidence of a common purpose, not direct proof of an explicit agreement.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy and trafficking in cocaine by possession of more than 400 grams.…
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 Drug Trafficking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders proceeding, we agree that no non-frivolous position is advancea-ble on behalf of the defendant and therefore affirm his convictions for conspiracy, see Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), quoting McCain v. State, 390 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1981)(recognizing that “direct proof of an agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury is free to infer from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed”), and trafficking in cocaine by possession of more than 400 grams. See § 893.02(16), Fla. Stat. (1997)(providing “ ‘[possession’ includes temporary possession for the purpose of verification or testing, irrespective of dominion or control”); Hamilton v. State, 782 So. 2d 498, 494-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(recognizing that this statute has created a “statutory exception” to Campbell v. State, 577 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1991)); State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(recognizing that the 1992 amendment to section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, changed the law).
We note the excellence of the Anders brief prepared by Assistant Public Defender, Shaundra L. Kellam. Her representation fully complied with her duties both to her client and to the justice system she serves.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aleida Amaya v. State, 782 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…o section 893.02(16), Florida negates the possibility of such a claim. See State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (recognizing that the 1992 amendment to section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, changed the law); see also Ortega v. State, 755 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that “[possession includes temporary possession for the purpose of verification or testing, irrespective of dominion or control.” Moreover, the facts sub judice are simply dist…
Authorities Cited
- Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Campbell v. State, 577 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1991)
- McCAIN v. State, 390 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)