WILLIAM ROSCOE TOMLIN, APPELLANT,
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.
William Roscoe Tomlin appealed his convictions for drug-related offenses and probation revocation. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions for sale and possession of MDA but reversed his convictions for conspiracy to sell MDA and possession of cannabis due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed convictions for sale and possession of MDA, finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession. The court reversed convictions for conspiracy to sell MDA and possession of cannabis due to insufficient evidence, as the state failed to identify a co-conspirator and the marijuana may have belonged to persons renting rooms in the house. The probation revocation was affirmed.
[1] Constructive possession of contraband may be inferred from incriminating statements or circumstances, including ownership of the premises where the contraband is found an…
[2] Evidence is insufficient to prove conspiracy when the alleged co-conspirator is an undercover officer acting in the discharge of their duties.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Constructive possession may be inferred from incriminating statements or circumstances.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving constructive possession of contraband
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTomlin was on probation for shooting into an occupied vehicle when he was charged with multiple drug crimes. On March 15, 1974, an undercover agent pu…
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 Sale Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*501] GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant was adjudicated guilty of shooting into an occupied vehicle and placed on probation for five years. Within the term of his probation, appellant was charged with and convicted of the following crimes: (1) conspiracy to sell a controlled substance, to wit: MDA on March 19, 1974 (felony); (2) sale of a controlled substance, to wit: MDA on March 15, 1974 (felony) ; (3) possession of a controlled substance, to wit: less than five grams of cannabis on March 19, 1974 (misdemeanor) ; (4) possession of a controlled substance, to wit: MDA on March 19, 1974 (felony). Appellant was sentenced to five years on each of the felony convictions and six months for possession of cannabis. His probation was also revoked, and he was sentenced to one year for shooting into an occupied vehicle. All of the sentences were concurrent.
An undercover agent made a controlled buy of MDA from appellant on March 15, 1974. The evidence of guilt concerning this crime is clear. On March 19, the same undercover agent arranged to go to appellant’s house to make a larger purchase of MDA. When the agent arrived, appellant told him the MDA wasn’t there and that they would have to go get it. When they went outside to get in the agent’s car, the police arrived with a search warrant, and appellant was arrested. The police found MDA in a cigarette box on a coffee table in the living room.
Contrary to appellant’s contention, we believe that his possession of the MDA on March 19, 1974, was sufficiently proved. Constructive possession may be inferred from incriminating statements or circumstances. Taylor v. State, Fla.App. 2d, 1975, 319 So. 2d 114. The appellant was the owner of the house. While others rented rooms in the house, the contraband was not found in these rooms. The appellant was dealing in MDA and had sold some to the undercover agent at the house just four days earlier. The evidence was sufficient to infer knowledge of the presence of the MDA and the ability to maintain control over it. Cf. Frank v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1967, 199 So. 2d 117. Appellant’s statement to the agent that they had to go somewhere else to get the MDA tended to rebut the inference, but the jury resolved this issue in favor of the state.
In the course of searching the house, the police found a small quantity of marijuana in an unspecified location. There was no other evidence tending to tie appellant to the marijuana. Thus, the evidence was subject to the reasonable hypothesis of appellant’s innocence in that the marijuana may have been in the possession of one of the persons who was renting a room in the house. Cf. Harris v. State, Fla.App. 3d, 1974, 307 So. 2d 218.
Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy to sell the MDA. The state never did say with whom the appellant was supposed to be conspiring. The undercover agent could not have been the conspirator because where one of two persons who conspire to do an illegal act is an officer acting in the discharge of his duties, the other person cannot be convicted on a charge of conspiracy. King v. State, Fla. 1958, 104 So. 2d 730. The only testimony remotely relevant to this count indicated that a man named Snyder may have been present when the undercover agent talked to appellant about the purchase of MDA. By itself, this evidence was not sufficient to prove that appellant and Snyder were guilty of conspiracy.
Appellant’s other points on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, the judgments for sale and possession of MDA are affirmed, and the judgments for conspiracy and possession of cannabis are reversed. The judgment entered upon the probation revocation is also affirmed.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…the accused in the bag of marijuana, suspicious behavior and other factors that established guilt making it in-apposite authority on the issue of constructive possession as proven by occupancy alone of a place where drugs are found. Tomlin v. State, 333 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) cited Frank and talked about constructing possession of a controlled drug from the fact that the drug was found in a house owned and occupied by the defendant and others, but the defendant had also made incriminating statements to…
-
Warmington v. State, 149 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 2014)…ith respect to the burglary count where there was no evidence refuting his reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he was only an onlooker or mere witness to a crime.” (citing J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985))); Tomlin v. State, 333 So. 2d 500, [*661] 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“[T]he evidence was subject to the reasonable hypothesis of appellant’s innocence in that the marijuana [as the appellant argued] may have been in the possession of one of the persons who was renting a room in the hou…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 455 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…nt to establish a conspiracy. Honchell v. State, 257 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1971); Beke v. State, 423 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Sanchez, 398 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Tomlin v. State, 333 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The evidence in this case established no more than the defendant’s presence while acts were taken in furtherance of the cocaine transaction — actually, no more than his apparent association with Urquiza. There is nothing in the r…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- King v. State, 104 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1957)
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Deadwyler, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)