WILLIE CLEMENT NORRIS, 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 defendant's admission of ownership and occupancy, coupled with the absence of evidence of joint occupancy, was sufficient proof of possession with intent to sell cannabis, despite the presence of another person and rent payment by another.
The defendant was found in an apartment where cannabis was discovered. The defendant later admitted to being the owner and occupant of the apartment. …
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 Joint Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The single question presented by this appeal is whether the proof of possession with intent to sell cannabis was sufficient because of the possibility that there was joint possession of the apartment in which the contraband was found. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, two persons were in the apartment, one of whom was the defendant. Later, the appellant admitted to police officers that he was “. . . the occupant and the owner .” of the apartment and delivered the keys to the police. The defendant offered the testimony of the apartment manager that the defendant was not the person who paid the rent, but the manager testified that he had no knowledge of who occupied the apartment.
We conclude that the fact that a person, other than the defendant, was also present at the time of the service of the search warrant and that a person, other than the defendant, regularly paid the rent was not enough to bring this cause within the purview of the rule in Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), because of defendant’s admission that he was the owner and occupant and the absence of any testimony that the apartment was jointly occupied with another person.
The State has noted and called to the attention of this court that the sentence imposed is in violation of Martin v. State, 251 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); and Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977), filed July 28, 1977.1 Therefore, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence and remand the cause for the entry of a sentence in accordance with the cited authorities.
Judgment affirmed; sentence reversed.
. Petition for Rehearing pending.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…o recognized these principles. Thames v. State, 366 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied 378 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1979); Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Norman v. State, 362 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Norris v. State, 351 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Zicca v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970). In the present case, we find sufficient “other” circumstances conjoined with the appellant’s non-exclusive possession of t…
-
Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…and boy friend, the latter being the registered guest, when marijuana and pipe found in plain view on dresser; Norman v. State, 362 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Defendant admitted he knew marijuana was in barn on farm he rented; Norris v. State, 351 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Defendant owner and occupant of apartment in which marijuana was found when defendant and another present at time of search. No evidence apartment jointly occupied with another person; Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- Martin v. State, 251 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)