ALEIDA AMAYA, 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 state's evidence was legally sufficient to establish possession of cocaine for trafficking charges.
[1] Evidence of inspecting contraband, negotiating its purchase, and paying for it is legally sufficient to establish possession for trafficking purposes.
[2] Temporary possession of contraband for the purpose of verification or testing constitutes legal possession, irrespective of dominion or control, following the 1992 amendm…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant and her companion inspected and negotiated for cocaine with an undercover officer. After paying for the drugs, they were arrested before…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and conspiring to traffic in cocaine. See §§ 893.135(l)(b), 893.135(5), Fla.Stats. (1997). Defendant argues that the state’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish possession. We disagree.
In the instant case the defendant and her companion had inspected the cocaine at issue and conducted negotiations with the Homestead Police detective acting under cover at the scene. Defendant’s companion, holding the drugs, put the cocaine down, reached into his pocket for his money, and then paid $7000 to the officer for the drugs. The two purchasers then asked the undercover officer for a bag so that they could leave the scene undetected. The officer left the room, and the two were arrested. Clearly at the time of the arrest, the defendant and her companion had the right to possession and control of the cocaine and had physically exercised that right.
Defendant cites to Garces v. State, 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), as supporting her claim that she was not “knowingly in actual or constructive possession” of the drugs at issue. Garces held that the temporary control of contraband in the presence of its actual owner, for the purpose of verifying that it was what it purported to be, did not constitute “legal possession.” However the 1992 amendment to section 893.02(16), Florida negates the possibility of such a claim. See State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (recognizing that the 1992 amendment to section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, changed the law); see also Ortega v. State, 755 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that “[possession includes temporary possession for the purpose of verification or testing, irrespective of dominion or control.” Moreover, the facts sub judice are simply distinguishable from Garces. Here, the evidence established a completed sale. See Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(distinguishing Garces where drug purchase had been completed).
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melphys Santana-Ozuna v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
United States v. Conage, 976 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020)…purchase. In short, Cunningham arguably suggests that a purchase conviction requires that the transaction be completed, and a completed transaction would require the purchaser to obtain possession of the purchased drug. Likewise, in Amaya v. State, 782 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the appellate court focused 28 Case: 17-13975 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 29 of 41 obliquely on the notion of a "completed sale” in upholding the defendant's conviction for trafficking under § 893.135(1). Id. at 985. The case…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Drugs, Inc. v. H.S.I. Support Sys., Inc., 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Garces v. State, 485 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Lamanto v. State, 547 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Ortega v. State, 755 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)