Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Distribute

918 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 108 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Norman v. State
  379 So. 2d 643· Fla.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 270×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Ray Norman was convicted of cannabis possession after sheriff's warrantless search of a tobacco barn on leased farm property. The Florida Supreme Court held the initial search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the defendant's subsequent consent was tainted by the illegal int
• United States v. Valle-Valdez
  554 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-08 ·cited 204×
• United States v. Bascaro
  742 F.2d 1335· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 192×
  The court held that marijuana offenses can be the subject of a RICO charge and that wiretap applications, even if amended, are valid if probable cause exists independently of challenged information.
• United States v. Blasco
  702 F.2d 1315· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 188×
  The court held that the warrantless entry and search of the Cohen property were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations did not prejudice the appellants to the extent requiring a mistrial.
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Stricklin
  591 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 150×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final order, and the burden of persuasion shifts to the government once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of former jeopardy.
• United States v. Postal
  589 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 146×
  A violation of a treaty does not divest a court of jurisdiction over defendants arrested aboard a foreign vessel seized beyond the twelve-mile limit.
• United States v. Miller
  589 F.2d 1117· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 137×
  The court held that the search of the boat and seizure of the navigational chart were constitutional under the community caretaking and exigent circumstances doctrines, and that the appellant's detention and subsequent arrest were justified by probable cause.
• United States v. Gomez-Rojas
  507 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excusing a potential entrapment witness without a proper Fifth Amendment inquiry and in giving an erroneous jury instruction on entrapment, requiring a new trial for Sutherlin. The court affirmed Gomez-Rojas' conviction, finding suffic
• United States v. Alfrey
  620 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 127×
  The court held that Customs officers have statutory authority to board vessels sighted in customs waters for document checks, and that the plain view doctrine and exigent circumstances justified the subsequent warrantless search. The court also reversed convictions for importatio
• United States v. Ramirez
  710 F.2d 535· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 125×
  The court held that the police conduct did not violate due process or supervisory power, the admission of a confession was harmless error, jury instructions were adequate, the jury was not coerced, the indictment contained no prejudicial surplusage, and the evidence was sufficien
• United States v. Griffin
  818 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 124×
  The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Chan Walker Zielie
  734 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 122×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated one, finding no violations of speedy trial, self-representation, opening statement, co-conspirator statement admissibility, sufficiency of evidence, forfeiture, double jeopardy, or jury communication rights.
• United States v. Walker
  720 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 122×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding no merit in challenges to severance, Brady violations, hearsay admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Natividad Ocanas
  628 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in admitting testimony or denying severance, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Ferg
  504 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-09 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, reversing the conviction.
• United States v. Tobin
  923 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 112×
  The en banc court affirmed the district court's denial of the motions to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of the house, garage, and station wagon was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. O'Connell
  841 F.2d 1408· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the wiretap evidence was properly admitted because the necessity requirement was met, authorization was proper, and minimization efforts were reasonable. The court also held that the automobile stop was based on probable cause derived from the collective knowl
• United States v. Goodwin
  625 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by not conducting a proper inquiry into witnesses' Fifth Amendment claims and by denying a defendant's timely request for a subpoena for a material character witness.
• United States v. Smith
  680 F.2d 255· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 103×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 955a is within Congress's power to apply extraterritorially to stateless vessels engaged in drug trafficking affecting the United States, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for possession with intent to distr
• United States v. Regino Palacios
  556 F.2d 1359· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 101×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. LEE
  743 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 100×
• Denehy v. State
  400 So. 2d 1216· Fla.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 99×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Appellants Denehy and Pitoscia were convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to sell after a search at an agricultural inspection station. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the agricultural inspection statute and affirmed their convictions, finding
• United States v. Meros
  866 F.2d 1304· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the prosecutor did not violate Brady or Giglio by failing to disclose information not in the government's possession or that was discoverable by the defense. It also held that one conviction for structuring transactions was improper, but others were affirmed,
• United States v. Brantley
  733 F.2d 1429· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-23 ·cited 97×
  The court held that venue was proper for possession with intent to distribute charges against appellants who aided and abetted the crime, and that certain conspiracy convictions merge with a continuing criminal enterprise conviction. The court also found that the investigation in
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Arteaga-Limones
  529 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 96×
• United States v. Carter
  721 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 94×
  The court held that tape-recorded conversations were admissible as co-conspirator hearsay and affirmed RICO conspiracy convictions, reversing only tax evasion convictions for Larry and Suzette Jackson.
• United States v. Varella
  692 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of informants, denying severance motions, or admitting hearsay statements made in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy.
• United States v. Williford
  764 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 93×
  The court held that evidence of a cocaine negotiation was admissible as inextricably intertwined with the charged marijuana conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana.
• United States v. Weinrich
  586 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the wiretap application was supported by sufficient probable cause and the information was not stale, and that the searches of the vessels were lawful due to probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Severo D. Espinosa
  771 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 90×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or mistrial based on co-defendant's opening statement.
• United States v. Whitmire
  595 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the boarding and subsequent search of the vessel did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, based on reasonable suspicion of a customs violation.
• United States v. Evans
  697 F.2d 240· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 88×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the admission of prior wrongful acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Massey
  687 F.2d 1348· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the use of a defendant's post-arrest silence to impeach an exculpatory story may violate due process if Miranda warnings were given, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if warnings were provided.
• United States v. Venerando German Serrano
  607 F.2d 1145· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were affirmed because the Customs officers had reasonable suspicion to board the vessel, the trial judge properly denied the recusal motion, and the prosecutor's comments on the defendants' silence were permissible.
• United States v. Deral Gene Holman
  680 F.2d 1340· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting the voir dire, admitting evidence of prior similar acts, or limiting cross-examination, as the procedures followed and evidence admitted were permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and relevan
• United States v. Worthington
  544 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and search were lawful because probable cause existed based on corroborated informer's tip and plain view observation of contraband, and the district court did not err in denying an in camera interview with the informer.
• United States v. Bustamante-Gamez
  488 F.2d 4· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-24 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to believe the car was in the garage and that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the garage for arrest, and that the entry complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
• United States v. Rochan
  563 F.2d 1246· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 86×
  Statements by the prosecutor and trial judge did not constitute an improper comment on the defendants' failure to testify, and authenticated transcripts of consensual tape recordings are admissible with participant testimony as to accuracy.
• United States v. Basey
  816 F.2d 980· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the investigatory stop and subsequent arrest of Basey were lawful, and the search of his vehicle incident to that arrest was also lawful. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove Ponce's participation in the charged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Galiffa
  734 F.2d 306· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a jury instruction on aiding and abetting a conspiracy is permissible even if not explicitly stated in the indictment, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Alvarez
  580 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 82×
  An attorney operating under an actual conflict of interest deprives a defendant of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel, and reversal is automatic without a showing of prejudice.
• United States v. Marino-Garcia
  679 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 81×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C.A. § 955a extends U.S. criminal jurisdiction to all stateless vessels on the high seas engaged in drug distribution, regardless of a nexus to the United States, and that such seizures do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Hines v. State
  737 So. 2d 1182· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-07-15 ·cited 80×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Randy Hines appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell near a school, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through an illegal search. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Deputy Simmons unconstitutionally reac
• United States v. Stanley
  765 F.2d 1224· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for Evan Leake on all counts, and for Russell Greenway and Edward Shorr on Count 4. The court affirmed all other convictions.
• United States v. Zylstra
  713 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue, reinstating bail, or in sentencing the defendant, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's closing re
• United States v. Grover Lamar LEE
  622 F.2d 787· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-30 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the defendant's retrial for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, as prior acquittals did not necessarily resolve facts essential to the current charge.
• United States v. DeBERRY
  487 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-07 ·cited 80×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, arguing that the trial court properly handled the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation by questioning the defendants and counsel.
• United States v. Ubaldo Trevino and Ramiro Gonzalez
  556 F.2d 1265· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-03 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the presentence report was not discoverable under the Jencks Act, Brady, or Rule 16 because these provisions are directed toward evidence in the hands of the prosecutor.