RASHAD DARNELE GIBSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 State presented sufficient evidence of possession and knowledge of contraband to support a conviction for trafficking in amphetamine where the defendant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle containing the contraband in plain view and ready reach.
[1] A defendant's presence as driver and sole occupant of a vehicle at the time of arrest, combined with contraband found in plain view and ready reach, is sufficient to esta…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Under either theory of possession . . . the State must prove that the accused had control of the contraband.”
Establishing the legal standard for possession crimes
Gibson was arrested as the driver and sole occupant of a vehicle in which amphetamine was found in plain view and ready reach. Gibson testified he had…
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 Exclusive Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1823 Lower Tribunal No. CF20-003947-XX _____________________________
RASHAD DARNELE GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Michelle O. Pincket, Judge.
November 14, 2025
NARDELLA, J.
Rashad Gibson appeals his conviction for trafficking in amphetamine arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Upon de novo review, see Dubois v. State, 363 So. 3d 246, 247 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), we affirm because the State adduced sufficient evidence of possession and knowledge of the contraband.
“All possession crimes may be either actual or constructive.” Sundin v. State, 27 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736,
2
738 n.2 (Fla. 1996)). “Under either theory of possession . . . the State must prove that the accused had control of the contraband.” Sanders v. State, 210 So. 3d 246, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting G.G. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). Here, the State’s evidence showed that Gibson was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle in which the contraband was found, and that the contraband was in Gibson’s plain view and ready reach. Cf. Lee v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Lee’s presence, as driver and sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of his arrest, is sufficient to show he exclusively possessed the vehicle, creating an inference of his dominion and control and guilty knowledge of the marijuana.”). Gibson’s testimony that he had no knowledge of the contraband and that other people were in the car earlier in the day does not render the State’s evidence insufficient. Rather, once the State adduced sufficient evidence to support each element of the crime, any dispute in the facts is to be resolved by the jury. See Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 483, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“[T]he jury is free to believe or disbelieve the defendant. . . . The question of exclusive possession is properly determined by the jury.”).
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.
3
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- LEE v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Sundin v. State, 27 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- G.G. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Sanders v. State, 210 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Dubois v. State, 363 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)