CARLOS RODRIGUEZ DELGADO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; GUILLERMO MONTES LAGO, APPELLANT, V. THE 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 appeal convictions for unlawful sale of narcotics, arguing insufficient evidence and no completed sale due to lack of money transfer. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that an offer to sell narcotics constitutes a sale under statute and that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, sufficiently proved guilt.
The court held that an offer to sell narcotics constitutes a sale under Florida statute, so the lack of money transfer does not negate guilt. Additionally, the evidence—whether viewed as direct or circumstantial—was sufficient to support conviction, as it was susceptible to no reasonable hypothesis except the appellants' guilt.
“We have recently held that an offer to sell narcotics is a sale of narcotics within the meaning of § 398.03, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A.”
Establishes the legal principle that an offer to sell satisfies the statutory definition of sale, rejecting appellants' argument that lack of money transfer negates the sale.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Delgado and Lago, along with an unidentified individual and another defendant Reyes, were involved in a narcotics transaction with an under…
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 Unlawful Sale Of Narcotics cases and more on FLexlaw
Carlos Rodriguez Delgado and Guillermo Montes Lago each appeal from judgments declaring them guilty of the unlawful sale of narcotics and from sentences of five years in each case after trial by court. Appellants were co-defendants in the trial court; their separate appeals were consolidated for argument. Each appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of guilt.
The state’s case rested primarily upon the testimony of an undercover agent who was engaged in a course of dealings in an attempt to purchase narcotics through another defendant named Reyes, who was tried separately and is not a party to this appeal. An arrangement was finally made in conversations by Lago and the agent for the purchase of a quantity of cocaine. The arrangements were made by Lago after Lago and Delgado and an unidentified individual drove up to the agent in a parking lot. Delgado remained in the car the trio had arrived in while Lago made the arrangements with the agent. The cocaine was later delivered by Delgado in accordance with the plan worked out at that meeting. Delgado was arrested upon a prearranged signal before any money was passed to him but after the agent received the cocaine. Delgado was sitting in the agent’s car at that time.
Each appellant took the stand in his own defense. Lago denied ever having any conversations with the agent or selling him any narcotics. Delgado said that he had simply picked up a package to be delivered and that he did not know what it contained.
The appellants urge that there was no sale because there was no transfer of money. We have recently held that an *652offer to sell narcotics is a sale of narcotics within the meaning of § 398.03, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A. Betancourt v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 124. In the present instance it is clear that each of the appellants participated in the arrangements for the delivery and that the delivery was made pursuant to these arrangements. They offered cocaine for sale and therefore violated § 398.03. We therefore hold that this objection is without merit.
Appellants also claim error in the denial of their motion for a directed verdict upon the basis that the evidence against them is purely circumstantial and that it is susceptible to a reasonable explanation of innocence. See, e. g., Raybon v. State, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 7, 46 A.L.R.2d 1381. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence is not entirely circumstantial. There is direct testimony as to the actions of the appellants in participating in the sale of cocaine. Even if the evidence is considered as circumstantial it is susceptible to no reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants. See McBride v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 70; Koenig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 627; Ponce v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 60; Betancourt v. State, above.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milazzo v. State, 377 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1979)…and “attempted sale” are not synonymous. The Third District, in concluding that an attempted sale of cocaine is the same as a sale and not a separate offense, relied upon Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Delgado v. State, 229 So. 2d 651 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). In Betancourt and Delgado, the defendants violated a statute which defined sale to include the “barter, exchange, or gift, or offer thereof, and each such transaction made by any person, whether as principal, proprietor, agent, se…
-
Milazzo v. State, 359 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…more than a “delivery” with consideration; the transfer being the essence of the “sale”. An offer to sell, by definition, is a sale and not a separate crime of attempted sale. Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Delgado v. State, 229 So. 2d 651 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). To hold that attempted sale is a crime distinct from sale would result in absurdity. Attempted sale would be defined as an attempt to “deliver [i. e., to attempt transfer] [*925] something to another person in exchange for money…
-
Mitchell v. State, 488 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…t a sale need not be completed to sustain a conviction. In defining "sale” for purposes of the Drug Abuse Act the state asserts that case law indicates that an exchange of money need not have been completed to sustain a conviction. Delgado v. State, 229 So. 2d 651 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); see abo State v. Combs, 330 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Those cases do hold that to offer to sell narcotics & a sale of narcotics within the statute proscribing sale of narcotics. However, that statute, section 398.03, was the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McBRIDE v. State, 191 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Raybon v. State, 75 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1954)
- Burke v. Thos. D. Beasley, 75 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1954)
- Koenig v. State, 214 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Grant v. Louie L. Wainwright, 219 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)