ROBERT WAYNE TORRES, 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.
Appellant's conviction for marijuana possession was reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had custody or control over the apartment where the drug was found.
Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for marijuana possession when the defendant's only connection to the apartment is that he had been there several days and was not the sole occupant.
[1] A conviction for marijuana possession cannot be sustained when the defendant's connection to the premises is limited to a prior visit and he was not the sole occupant, as…
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 intelligencePolice observed multiple people entering and leaving an apartment, obtained a search warrant, and found marijuana in a bathroom closet. The appellant …
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 Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of possession of marijuana. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a six year term in the state prison. The question presented on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant had custody or control over the apartment where the marijuana was found.
The apartment had been watched by the police. A number of people were observed entering and leaving the apartment during the period it was being watched. The police secured a search warrant and knocked on the door. The door was opened and then slammed shut. Two men held the door shut until the police forced their way into the apartment. The marijuana was found in a closet in the bathroom. Appellant’s sole connection with the apartment was that he had been there several days. The apartment was rented to a person who was unaccounted for at the trial. Appellant was not the sole occupant of the apartment at any time established by the record. He ordinarily lived at another address with his grandmother.
*451This is a case where the jury may have inferred from the evidence that appellant had custody of the apartment but the record does not contain sufficient facts to support that inference as the only reasonable inference from the evidence. Therefore the judgment and sentence must be reversed upon authority of the rule stated in Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 282; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117.
Reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 276 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…t defendant knew of the presence of the drugs. By other evidence is meant evidence other than the evidence of the defendant’s non-exclusive possession of the premises. See Arant v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 515, Torres v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 253 So. 2d 450, Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282, Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 240 So. 2d 507, cert. denied, 244 So. 2d 435, and Frank v. State, supra. We fail to find in this record that the state presented sufficient other evidence to provide a…
-
Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Willis v. State, 320 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Medlin v. State, 279 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Griffin v. State, 276 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Langdon v. State, 235 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and Markham v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). These cases, like their progenitors Spataro and Frank themselves, recite the dicta that constructive possession is prov…
-
Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…nd the defendant sleeping alone in the bedroom where the contraband was found so as to put him in exclusive possession and control of the premises containing the contraband and the state does not contend otherwise. See Torres v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 450; Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282; Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117; Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 873. The evide…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- McKEE v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 245 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)