ARTHUR CARRERAS, 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.
Carreras appeals his conviction for tampering with physical evidence, cannabis possession, and drug paraphernalia possession, arguing that the cannabis and paraphernalia convictions should be vacated because the underlying statute was held facially unconstitutional in a federal court decision. The Florida appellate court affirmed his convictions, rejecting the constitutional challenge and finding the statute valid.
The court affirmed Carreras' convictions, rejecting his argument that section 893.101 is facially unconstitutional. The court stated that it does not credit Carreras' claim that the statute is unconstitutional and that the case illustrates the logic and propriety of the statute.
[1] A conviction for possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia is not invalidated by a prior ruling that the governing statute is facially unconstitutional, if that rulin…
[2] Evidence that objects were thrown from a moving vehicle during a traffic stop, and that these objects were retrieved and identified as cannabis, is sufficient to support…
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“We do not credit Carreras' claim that the statute under which he was convicted is facially unconstitutional. To the contrary, this case is an illustration of the logic and propriety of section 893.101, Florida Statutes.”
The court's rejection of the appellant's constitutional challenge to the statute under which he was convicted.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 5, 2010, a law enforcement officer observed a pick-up truck taking a turn too close and hitting the officer's patrol vehicle mirror. The 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 Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Arthur Carreras [“Carreras”] appeals his judgment and sentence for tampering with physical evidence, possession of twen*591ty grams or less of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues that his conviction for possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis, and for possession of drug paraphernalia, should be vacated because section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2009) has been held to be facially unconstitutional in Shelton v. Secretary, Dep’t of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011).
Testimony was presented during the trial that on November 5, 2010, a pick-up truck took a turn too close, causing the driver’s side exterior mirror of the pick-up truck to hit the driver’s side exterior mirror of a patrol vehicle. The law enforcement officer driving the patrol vehicle observed a white male with a beanie cap in the driver’s seat of the pick-up truck, and a black male in the passenger’s seat of the pick-up truck. The officer followed the pick-up truck and observed the pick-up straddling two lanes. When the officer put on the patrol vehicle’s emergency lights to effect a traffic stop, the pick-up truck began to erratically brake and swerve. The officer observed objects simultaneously being thrown out of the driver’s side and passenger’s side window. The object thrown out of the driver’s side window appeared to be larger than that thrown out of the passenger’s side window, and was released by a white hand. A second law enforcement officer, who was following the first officer,, observed an object being thrown out of the driver’s side and passenger’s side window of the pick-up truck. While the first officer was effecting a traffic stop, the second officer immediately stopped and retrieved the thrown objects, which were two bags. The second officer took the bags to the site of the traffic stop and gave them to the first officer who, upon visual inspection of the bags, recognized the substance in each to be cannabis. The contents of each bag field tested positive for cannabis. The first officer identified Carreras as the driver of the pick-up truck.
At trial, Carreras raised lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance as an affirmative defense to the charge of possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis and the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense with respect to each of the said charges. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on each of the counts. We do not credit Carreras’ claim that the statute under which he was convicted is facially unconstitutional. To the contrary, this case is an illustration of the logic and propriety of section 893.101, Florida Statutes. We have already rejected the reasoning of the Shelton case. See Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).1 We find no merit on the other issues raised by Carrer-as and decline to address them.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delancy v. Tucker, 88 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ppellate court to affirm a ruling by the trial court that reached the right result, but for wrong or different reasons). A direct appeal is the proper avenue for a facial constitutional challenge to a criminal statute. See, e.g., Carreras v. State, 81 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming judgment and sentence in direct appeal challenging facial constitutionality of drug possession statute based on Shelton ); Cashatt v. State, 873 So. 2d 430, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Appellant did not appeal his judgmen…
-
Edgard Carrion Navedo v. State, 140 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). See also Smith v. State, 81 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). PALMER, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, J.J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Holmes v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- State v. Adkins, 71 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2011)