LEROY RUSS, 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.
The court held that the trial court's finding of knowledge and constructive possession was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana after police found drugs in his car during a consensual search. Appellant denied knowledge, claimin…
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 Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence on the charge of possession of marijuana. We affirm.
Appellant 'challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict due to the lack of proof of appellant’s knowledge of the presence of marijuana in appellant’s car. Appellant was stopped by police and after a consensual search of his car, a package or bag of the drug was discovered under the driver’s side of the dashboard. At the time of the search, appellant owned the car in question and was driving the car alone when stopped. At trial appellant denied knowledge of the presence of the drug and alleged that the car'had been used earlier by another person.
The proof of scienter or knowledge of the presence of the drug in the case sub judice was in conflict and it was within the *93purview of the trier of fact to resolve the issue. Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117. The finding of the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, is accorded the weight of a jury verdict. We are of the opinion that the findings of the lower court were supported by competent substantial evidence as a whole and specifically as to appellant’s knowledge and constructive possession of the drug. Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873.
Accordingly, no reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence appealed is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…uch “other evidence” was presented here. Appellant, in our view, had only joint possession and control over the automobile, Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); cf. Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and there was no direct evidence that he knew the marijuana was in the unlocked center console, to which the other passengers had equal access. See Nogar v. State, 277 So. 2d 257 (Fla., 1973). The mere fact that appellant was in…1 / 2
-
Olin v. State, 391 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Zicca v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1970). COBB, FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and COWART, JJ., concur.…
-
V. B. L. v. State, 408 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…y to establish constructive possession, Coley v. State, 393 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Clark v. State, 359 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1979); Joiner v. State, 339 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and to overcome its burden of proof that no reasonable hypothesis of innocence remained. For these reasons, I would reverse defendant’s conviction.…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)