STEPHEN S. KING, 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.
Stephen S. King appeals the revocation of his probation and ten-year prison sentence. The court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that King constructively possessed marijuana found near him, which was essential to prove violation of his probation conditions.
The revocation of probation must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession of the marijuana. The State failed to prove that King had dominion and control over the contraband or knowledge of its presence, and mere proximity to contraband found in a public place is insufficient.
[1] To revoke probation, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.
[2] Evidence sufficient to predicate a revocation of probation must satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition of probation has been violated.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To revoke a defendant's probation, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation.”
Establishes the standard of proof required for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was on probation after pleading nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, resisting arrest, and felony driving with suspended license. Detective …
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 Felony Driving While License Suspended cases and more on FLexlaw
Stephen S. King appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to a total of ten years in prison. Because the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of probation, we reverse.
In the original criminal proceedings which led to the imposition of probation, King pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, and felony driving while license suspended. His probation orders contained standard condition five, which provides: “You will live and remain at liberty without violating any law. A conviction in a court of law shall not be necessary in order for such a violation to constitute a violation of your probation/community control period.”
On the day of the alleged violation, Detective John Batchelor and another plainclothes officer were driving in an unmarked car through an apartment complex in Mt. Dora at approximately 10:00 p.m. when they saw King standing near a vehicle. Detective Batchelor testified that King acknowledged them by waving, which he took to mean that King was “acknowledging [them] in reference to selling narcotics.” Before talking to King, the officers contacted Sergeant Robert Bell who was operating a marked patrol unit nearby, and advised him that they were going to investigate the possible sale of narcotics. When they returned to where King was standing, Detective Batchelor asked King if “he was good for any weed,” and King told them to park the car and talk to him. They did so, and Detective Batchelor again asked King about marijuana. About this time, Sergeant Bell arrived and placed King in handcuffs because he appeared to get “a little antsy as if he was going to take flight,” although Detective Batchelor testified that King was not then under arrest. A pat down of King revealed no contraband, but a small baggy of marijuana was found on the ground near King’s feet. The officers then arrested King for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, which formed the basis of his alleged condition five violation.
To revoke a defendant’s probation, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation. Schneck v. State, 764 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The evidence upon which to predicate a revocation of probation must be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition of probation has been violated. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 495 (Fla.1974).
Because King did not have actual, physical possession of the marijuana, the State was required to prove that King constructively possessed it. Scruggs v. State, 785 So. 2d 605, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). To establish constructive possession, the State must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was in his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the substance. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); see also State v. Wallace, 734 So. 2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Here, the evidence was wholly insufficient to demonstrate that King had dominion and control over the contraband or knowledge of its presence. No fingerprints were found on the baggy located near his feet; no drugs were discovered on his person; no one saw King discard the bag; and, King did not make any incriminating statements indicating his knowledge of it. Significantly, the baggy was found in a public place. When contraband is found in a public place, more than mere proximity to the defendant must be shown to sustain a conviction. Davis v. State, 761 So. 2d 1154, 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
As the evidence failed to establish more than King’s proximity to the marijuana, the State failed to establish constructive possession of the contraband, and, consequently failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that King violated condition five of his probation.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate King’s probation.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J. and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sami M. Osta v. State, 880 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e a violation of the condition requiring payment of restitution).The evidence upon which to predicate a revocation of probation must be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition of probation has been violated. King v. State, 817 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In order to meet its burden of proving that Osta had the ability but willfully refused to pay his restitution, the State presented records of Osta’s extensive travel history while on probation. The requests for travel permits s…
-
G.G. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…1154, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that defendant’s proximity to drugs discovered in public alley was insufficient, without more, to prove his constructive possession of drugs). The facts in this case are akin to those in Davis; King v. State, 817 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Agee v. State, 522 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); and Tanksley v. State, 332 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). As in those cases, here the contraband was discovered outdoors, in a location open to the public, but in proximity to th…
-
Cavokia Evans v. State, 26 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…I would reverse his judgment and sentence for trafficking in cocaine and remand for discharge. Because Mr. Evans did not actually possess the cocaine, the State was required to prove that he was in constructive possession of it. See King v. State, 817 So. 2d 935, 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). To prove constructive possession, the State had to establish that Mr. Evans knew of the presence of the cocaine and that he was able to exercise dominion and control over it. See Edison v. State, 954 So. 2d 1235, 1237 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Davis v. State, 761 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hamilton v. State, 734 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Scruggs v. State, 785 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Schneck v. State, 764 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)