RICKEY BROWNLEE, 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 evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for possession of marijuana when the substance was found in a room occupied by the defendant and another person.
Marijuana was found in a plastic bag on a nightstand in a bedroom admitted to be the defendant's room, which was also occupied by another female. The …
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 Inference Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Rickey Brownlee was charged by information with possession of cocaine (count 1), possession of heroin (count 2), and possession of not more than five grams of cannabis (count 3). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal for the State’s failure to establish a prima facie case on the count charging possession of cocaine and the count charging possession of heroin. The third count was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant was so adjudged and sentenced to nine months in the county jail. This appeal is from that judgment finding the defendant guilty of the misdemeanor of possession of less than five grams of marijuana.
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict is that the small amount of marijuana was found in a plastic bag on a night stand located between the two beds in a bedroom which the defendant admitted was “his room.” A young female was in one of the two beds located in that room.
Inasmuch as the marijuana was not hidden in any way, and it is apparent from the record that the room and the area where the marijuana was found was occupied by the defendant and another person, we hold that the judgment must be reversed upon the rule stated in Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971),1 and authorities cited therein.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
Reversed and remanded.
. “This 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 . . . ”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M. W. W. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…3) (fact that defendant told police to “get off his property” was not an admission of exclusive possession, especially because during the week before the drug search, other persons had entered the house occupied by the defendant); Brownlee v. State, 354 So. 2d 120 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) (fact that defendant admitted that a bedroom was “his room” was legally insufficient to show knowledge of cannabis therein when room was occupied by defendant and another person); Johnson v. State, 381 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla.3d DCA 1…
-
Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…session and control over the vehicle. There was no evidence defendant knew of presence of marijuana. Passengers had equal access and mere proof of ownership alone of a vehicle does not permit an inference of knowledge of presence; Brownlee v. State, 354 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Marijuana found in a plastic bag on a night stand located between two beds in a bedroom which defendant admitted was his room. A young female was in one of the two beds located in that room; Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1…
Authorities Cited
- Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)