TAVARES MCCOY, 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.
Tavares McCoy was convicted of possessing crack cocaine found in a cup on a porch where he was sitting. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence established McCoy's control over the drugs under either an actual possession or constructive possession theory.
The appellate court held that sufficient evidence established McCoy's possession of the drugs under either an actual possession/ready reach theory or a constructive possession theory, as the evidence showed McCoy had control over the drugs.
[1] Possession of contraband can be established by actual possession, where the item is within ready reach and under the control of the person.
[2] Possession of contraband can be established by constructive possession, which requires the defendant to have control over the contraband.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Both a "ready reach" actual possession theory and a constructive possession theory require that the defendant have control over the drugs.”
Establishes the essential element of control required for both theories of drug possession.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceApproximately $100 worth of crack cocaine was found in a cup on the front porch of a home that did not belong to McCoy. A police officer observed McCo…
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 Constructive Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Tavares McCoy, timely appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
The contraband in question, approximately $100 worth of crack cocaine, was found in a cup located on the front porch of a home which did not belong to appellant. A police officer had observed appellant sitting in a chair on the porch for approximately five to ten minutes; the cup was within arm’s reach of the chair. No one else was on the porch at the time, although to the left of the chair there was a corded telephone and the cord ran under the front door and into the house. When the officer handcuffed appellant, appellant immediately stated: “It’s not mine, it’s Keith’s.” We agree with the State that there was sufficient evidence to establish possession under either an actual possession/“ready reach” theory or a constructive possession theory.
Both a “ready reach” actual possession theory and a constructive possession theory require that the defendant have control over the drugs. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Drug Abuse — Possession (defining actual possession as “in the hand of or on the person” or “the thing is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person”); State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(dis-cussing the control element under a “ready reach” theory); Williams v. State, 724 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(recognizing that ability to maintain control over the contraband is an element of constructive possession). We have reviewed the record and find that regardless of whether the State was proceeding under the theory that McCoy was in actual possession of the drugs because they were within “ready reach” or the theory that McCoy was in constructive possession of the drugs, the evidence was sufficient to establish that McCoy was in control of the drugs. Here, appellant was the only person around and within arm’s reach of approximately $100 worth of cocaine which was otherwise unguarded and sitting out in the open on a porch. Under these circumstances, the issue of appellant’s guilt became a question for the jury.
AFFIRMED.
STEVENSON, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 854 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…person or in a bag or container in the hand of or on the person, or ... so close as to be within ready reach and ... under the control of the person.” In re Std. Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases, 543 So. 2d 1205, 1218 (Fla.1989); see also McCoy v. State, 840 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In constructive possession cases, proof of the defendant’s possession turns on the circumstances surrounding the location of the drugs when they are found and a resulting inference concerning the defendant’s control of the drugs…
-
G.G. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
-
Reynolds v. State, 983 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)….135(1) establishes two theories: (1) actual possession and (2) constructive possession. First, for actual possession, the State must prove that “the thing is so close as to be within ready reach and is under control of the person.” McCoy v. State, 840 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.7 (2002)). Here, when Reynolds entered the warehouse, he was neither within ready reach, nor in control of the barrels containing the marijuana. Therefore, the actual possession theor…
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
- State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 724 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)