CHARLES RALPH CHARIOTT AND ROBERT LEWIS FIXEL, APPELLANTS,
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.
Two defendants appealed their convictions for marijuana possession following a warrantless search of a vehicle. The court affirmed Chariott's conviction but reversed Fixel's, finding insufficient evidence of Fixel's knowledge of or control over the marijuana found in the car.
The arrest and search were legal with sufficient probable cause. Chariott's conviction was affirmed as there was sufficient evidence he possessed marijuana. Fixel's conviction was reversed because there was insufficient evidence of his knowledge of or control over the marijuana.
“The evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain the finding of probable cause for the arrest of these defendants without a warrant and for the search of the automobile and the seizure of the marijuana found therein.”
Establishes that the warrantless arrest and search were supported by sufficient probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChariott was driving a car owned by a third party and loaned to him. A search of the car yielded a cigar box containing marijuana under the driver's 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 Possession Of Narcotics cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants below, Chariott and Fixel, appeal from their convictions and sentences for possession of narcotics to-wit marijuana. Their appeals have been consolidated.
They challenge the legality of their arrests asserting that there was insufficient probable cause for the arrest; they challenge the search of an automobile and seizure of a cigar box containing marijuana on the grounds that the search and seizure were illegal and improper and finally they challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions.
The testimony of the arresting officers was conflicting but was resolved by the trial judge adversely to the defendants. The evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain the finding of probable cause for the arrest of these defendants without a warrant and for the search of the automobile and the seizure of the marijuana found therein.
We reach a different conclusion, however, after considering the sufficiency of *360the evidence introduced to convict these defendants.
The evidence introduced proved that Chariott was driving a car owned by a third party and loaned to Chariott. A search of the car resulted in the seizure of a cigar box containing material that appeared to be marijuana from under the driver’s seat. Chariott was also wearing a little leather bag on a leather string around his neck which contained small pieces of tobacco-like material suspected by the of- ' ficers to be marijuana. The testimony reveals that tests by a chemist verified that the materials were marijuana.
We, therefore, find sufficient, competent evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence of Chariott.
The record reveals no marijuana was found on the person of Fixel. The marijuana discovered in the car in which he was a passenger was in a cigar box under the seat of the driver, Chariott, and the car was owned by a third person. There was no proof that Fixel knew of the presence of the marijuana in the car or that he had any control or right of possession to either the car or narcotics. In other words, there was insufficient proof of scienter or knowledge on the part of Fixel to prove that he was in possession or control of narcotics or of the automobile.
The conviction and sentence of Fixel be and the same is, therefore, reversed. See Frank v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117 and Markman v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486.
The judgment and sentence of Chariott is affirmed. The judgment and sentence of Fixel is reversed and remanded for the entry of an order discharging the defendant, Fixel, from the cause.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…nstitution were violated. Under the claim of insufficiency of evidence Reis asserts the state failed to prove that she “knowingly” had marijuana in her possession. See Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Chariott v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 359; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; and Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117. In Frank, supra, it was held that proof of knowledge in such cases might consist of “evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from whic…
-
Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…any control over marijuana and that therefore their convictions of unlawful possession of marijuana must be reversed. See Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Chariott v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 359. Montalvo and Corrado drove to Martin’s house, together with Betancourt, in a car which was followed by the truck containing the bulk marijuana. Betancourt left the car, and the driver parked the car. Were it not for these facts, the proposition th…
-
Toribio Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…hat the cocaine was found in a car of which Pena had joint possession does not establish his constructive possession of it. Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Chariott v. State, 226 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). To establish constructive possession, the state had to prove that Pena had dominion and control over the cocaine, knew the cocaine was within his presence, and knew of its illicit nature. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), ce…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)