JANET ROSTER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 6th DCA | 2026-04-24
No. 2023-4107
McFee, J., Wozniak, J., White, J., Mize, J.
2026 FL 4783 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2026)

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.


Holding

The State presented sufficient evidence of the requisite statutory weight for trafficking when chemical testing confirmed the presence of controlled substance in both the aggregate and individual containers.


Headnotes

[1] Chemical testing establishing the presence of controlled substance in both the aggregate substance and individual containers constitutes sufficient evidence of the statut…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Janet Roster was charged with drug trafficking. Chemical testing revealed the presence of controlled substance in the aggregate substance and in each …

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.


Opinion of the Court

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 6D2023-4107 Lower Tribunal No. 20000442F

JANET ROSTER, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County. Shannon H. McFee, Judge.

April 24, 2026

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Mosley v. State, 100 So. 3d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (concluding "based on the unique circumstances of this case that the State presented sufficient evidence of the requisite statutory weight for trafficking" when both "the aggregate substance” and “each individual empty baggie" were found to contain the controlled substance after chemical testing); Bell v. State, 835 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“In considering the motion [to dismiss], 'the State is should be resolved against the defendant.” (quoting State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))).

WOZNIAK, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and David L. Redfearn, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

2


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw