CARLOS CAMPANA, 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 affirmed the conviction for trafficking in cocaine, holding that the trial court properly denied a lesser-included offense instruction because the evidence proved a completed offense rather than mere attempt.
A trial court properly denies a jury instruction on attempted trafficking when the evidence establishes a completed trafficking offense.
[1] A trial court properly denies a jury instruction on a lesser included offense of attempted trafficking when the evidence establishes that the defendant completed the traf…
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“if my people like [the first kilo], then I can do five or six kilos [of cocaine] a week”
Incriminating statement made by appellant to the undercover officer showing intent to traffic in large quantities of cocaine
Appellant showed an undercover officer money, made statements about purchasing multiple kilos of cocaine weekly, carried a duffel bag to the officer's…
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
GROSS, J.
We affirm appellant’s conviction of trafficking in cocaine. See § 893.135(l)(b)l.c., Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court correctly denied appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted trafficking in cocaine, since the only evidence in the case proved a “completed offense.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.510(a); see Ostrum v. State, 638 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Henry v. State, 445 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Lunsford v. State, 426 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Appellant showed the undercover officer two bundles of money and made a number of incriminating statements, including “if my people like [the first kilo], then I can do five or six kilos [of cocaine] a week.” Carrying a duffel bag to transport the cocaine, appellant went to the officer’s undercover vehicle, a Ford Explorer. The officer told appellant that the kilos were on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the vehicle. Appellant got into the Explorer and took possession of the cocaine. Holding the cocaine between his legs, appellant asked the officer for a knife so that he could test the drug. The officer said that the kilo already had a “window,” but the defendant did not find this acceptable. Not having a knife, the officer gave appellant his keys; appellant sliced open the bag of cocaine, looked at it, felt it, and put some on his tongue. Shortly thereafter, the takedown team arrived and appellant was arrested.
On the remaining issue, the trial court gave appellant an adequate opportunity to question the translator. AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noble v. State, 787 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2001)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Noble v. State, 765 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const. Noble challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, most of which have been addressed previously by this Court. See Gra…
Authorities Cited
- Rickie Lee Henry v. State, 445 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Lunsford v. State, 426 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Ostrum v. State, 638 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)