STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, 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 appeals the dismissal of charges against Wright for attempted delivery of cocaine. The court reverses, holding that Wright's act of driving his co-defendant to facilitate a drug transaction, combined with Wright's own statement showing knowledge of the purpose, establishes a prima facie case of aiding and abetting in attempted delivery, even without possession of drugs.
Yes. A person who aids and abets a confederate in selling or delivering controlled substances may be convicted of unlawful sale or delivery even without personal possession of the drugs. Here, Wright's transportation of Garrett to the location and his own statement demonstrating knowledge that he was facilitating a drug transaction establish a prima facie case of attempted delivery.
[1] A defendant may be convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of contraband drugs by aiding and abetting a confederate, even if the drugs are physically possessed only by the…
[2] The state may rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case against a defendant.
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“A person who aids and abets a confederate in selling or delivering contraband drugs, which are physically possessed only by the confederate, may be convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of the drugs, but not unlawful possession.”
Establishes the legal principle that aiding and abetting liability for drug delivery does not require personal possession by the aider-abettor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright drove his co-defendant Garrett and others to a store where Garrett called a confidential informant to sell drugs. When police arrested Garrett,…
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 Rule 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals the dismissal of its information charging the appellee with attempted delivery of cocaine. Because the undisputed facts would support a prima facie case that the appellee aided and abetted his co-defendant by driving him to set up the salé óf cocaine, we reverse.
The trial court granted appellee/de-fendant Wright’s motion to dismiss the information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), which we review de novo. See State v. Major, 30 So.3d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Initially, a defendant has the burden to show that the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a prima facie case. Id. To defeat a rule 3.190(c)(4) motion, the state need only dispute a material fact alleged by the defendant or provide additional facts which would meet a prima facie ease. See State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So.2d 110, 111 (Fla. 2000). The state may rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence to meet its burden. See State v. Jaramillo, 951 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
The state charged Wright with attempted delivery of cocaine. Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver ... a controlled substance.” A person who aids and abets a confederate in selling or delivering contraband drugs, which are physically possessed only by the confederate, may be convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of the drugs, but not unlawful possession. See L.J. v. State, 578 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also Sheppard v. State, 996 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
In this case, the undisputed facts offered in the rule 3.190(c)(4) motion show that Wright drove his co-defendant Garrett and others to a store where Garrett made a phone call to a confidential informant to sell drugs. When the police arrested Garrett, Wright began to drive off. No drugs were found on Wright or in the vehicle. The state then offered evidence that when he exited the car, Wright said to the officer, “I was just giving him a ride to bust a lick, I didn’t have no f-g dope.”1 The officer testified that the *1205phrase “bust a lick” was slang for conducting a narcotics transaction.
Because Wright’s statement provided evidence that he knew that he was transporting Garrett for the purposes of concluding a drug transaction, a prima facie case of attempted delivery has been made. See L.J., 578 So.2d at 362. The state did not have to show possession by Wright to support the charge.
The order dismissing the state’s information is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the charges.
LEVINE and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sanchez, 133 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ourt agreed with appellee and dismissed six counts and four predicate incidents. The state timely appeals the decision of the trial court. We review de novo a trial court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a criminal information. State v. Wright, 65 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We also review de novo a trial court’s interpretation of a statute. State v. Gonzalez, 121 So. 3d 625, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Appellee was charged under sections 893.135(l)(c) and 893.05. Section 893.135(l)(c) provides:…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2000)
- L.J. v. State, 578 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- State v. Jaramillo, 951 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- State v. Rumi Major, 30 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Sheppard v. State, 996 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)