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

• United States v. Veon
  474 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in restricting cross-examination, admitting a tape recording, or in its instructions to the jury, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
• Tarver v. State
  961 So. 2d 1094· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-07-27 ·cited 5×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Maurice Tarver appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, which resulted from a negotiated plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that the trial court erred in basing probable cause on co
• Rodriguez v. State
  958 So. 2d 469· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-05-11 ·cited 5×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  A defendant's nolo contendere plea does not preclude a double jeopardy challenge when the violation is apparent from the record and the plea was not a bargained-for exchange for a specific benefit.
• United States v. Teague
  956 F.2d 1427· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's voluntary drug treatment and subsequent diagnoses did not create reasonable cause for a competency hearing, the sufficiency of evidence claim was waived, and the refusal of an entrapment instruction was proper due to the defendant's clear predi
• United States v. Ortiz
  942 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the defendants were not entitled to a new trial based on juror issues or extraneous information.
• United States v. Suarez
  906 F.2d 977· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the sealing requirements of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act were not applicable because recording the intercepted pager communications was not possible with the equipment used.
• United States v. Steuben
  850 F.2d 859· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the captain (Steuben) and a key crew member (Neiro) of aiding and abetting drug possession and importation, but insufficient for the mechanic (Caro) and a regular seaman (Salazar).
• United States v. Angola
  514 F. Supp. 933· S.D. Fla.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) is constitutional and that the United States has subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendants' actions.
• Mitchell v. State
  351 So. 2d 1142· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-11-21 ·cited 5×
  Affirmed conviction for marijuana possession; juvenile's guilty plea waived any challenge to hearsay evidence in the transfer hearing, and the trial court properly refused to withdraw the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Gorthy
  550 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the seizure of marijuana was lawful due to probable cause and that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated.
• Rawlings v. State
  979 So. 2d 1238· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-04-30 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the State presented sufficient competent evidence of the defendant's intent to sell marijuana, supporting the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
• State v. Thomas
  960 So. 2d 869· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-07-13 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The State appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence against Adrian Thomas for drug possession and distribution charges. The appellate court reversed, finding that a confidential informant's information, corroborated by recorded phone calls and officer observations, was
• Salyers v. State
  920 So. 2d 747· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-02-10 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  William Allen Salyers appeals his conviction for drug trafficking and firearm possession, challenging the validity of a search warrant that yielded the evidence against him. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the affidavit supporting the sear
• D.A.H. v. State
  718 So. 2d 195· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-07-10 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  An officer's observations of a suspect making several hand-to-hand transactions exchanging money for small packages, combined with the officer's training and experience in narcotics detection, provide probable cause to stop and search the suspect.
• Williams v. State
  700 So. 2d 190· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-10-17 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Albert Williams appeals his convictions for drug-related offenses stemming from a search of his mobile home. The court reverses his conviction for possession of cannabis over 20 grams, finding that under Paccione v. State, a defendant cannot be convicted and punished for both pos
• Britt v. State
  673 So. 2d 934· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-05-20 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Anita Britt was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell after police officer Sievers pursued an unrelated suspect into her apartment without a warrant and observed drugs inside. The court reversed the conviction, holding that an officer cannot lawfully enter a th
• United States v. Truman Tolson and Darrell Tolson
  988 F.2d 1494· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 4×
  A guilty plea to a conspiracy charge does not waive a defendant's right to contest the duration of their individual participation in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Clifford
  979 F.2d 896· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence, though thin, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Martinez
  974 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived her Sixth Amendment right to closing argument by remaining silent after the trial court indicated arguments were unnecessary, despite having a meaningful opportunity to object.
• United States v. Elic L. Gilliam
  975 F.2d 1050· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not required to conduct a Rule 44(c) hearing at sentencing when the alleged conflict arose at trial and was not known or reasonably knowable by the court at that time.
• United States v. Rojas-Martinez
  968 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that confessions were voluntary, severance was not required, and evidence was sufficient for convictions and sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Chrismon
  965 F.2d 1465· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no Sixth Amendment violations regarding co-defendant statements and upholding the denial of the motion to suppress Jackson's statement.
• United States v. Gibson
  963 F.2d 708· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the destruction of the marihuana did not violate due process because bad faith was not shown.
• United States v. Maxwell
  966 F.2d 545· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, his due process rights were not violated by the referral to federal court, and his sentence, including supervised release, was permissible.
• United States v. Cardona
  955 F.2d 976· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, and the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search as a non-owning passenger.
• United States v. Seley
  957 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred retrial on the conspiracy charge because the jury's acquittal on possession and importation necessarily determined the ultimate fact that the defendant lacked knowledge of the marijuana.
• United States v. Christoffel
  952 F.2d 1086· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury selection process did not restrict the defendant's peremptory challenges, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, but the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was erroneous. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are typically brought
• United States v. Barton
  949 F.2d 968· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prior conviction for drug possession, occurring six years before the offense of conviction and not part of a common scheme or plan, cannot be used to calculate the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2).
• United States v. Heriberto Fernandez Monsisvais
  946 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in conducting a supplemental suppression hearing because the prior appellate decision constituted the law of the case, which was binding on the district court.
• United States v. Inez Ramon Salinas
  940 F.2d 392· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the officer lacked founded suspicion to stop the vehicle, and therefore the evidence found should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Cerbando Gonzales
  930 F.2d 795· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in factoring into the base offense level the amount of marijuana involved in dismissed counts and in increasing the base offense level based on the defendant's managerial role.
• United States v. McDONALD
  905 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while there were errors in admitting evidence of past drug use, hearsay testimony, and in the prosecutor's closing argument, these errors were harmless given the strength of other evidence and the implausibility of the defendant's story.
• United States v. Hasette
  898 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 4×
  A U-turn or turnaround in front of a temporary border checkpoint is considered a stop at the checkpoint, negating the need for reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop the vehicle.
• United States v. Gonzales
  897 F.2d 504· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an investigatory stop based on a BOLO issued by an officer who reasonably relied on information from a confidential informant with a basis for personal knowledge was valid.
• United States v. Melucci
  888 F.2d 200· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to contest the search of the storage unit and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the handwriting expert's testimony.
• United States v. Victoria
  876 F.2d 1009· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a stateless vessel is subject to U.S. jurisdiction for drug offenses, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Mason
  869 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of day-timers did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that an amendment to an indictment to correct a defendant's middle initial was permissible as a matter of form without prejudice.
• United States v. Hahn
  849 F.2d 932· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agent's actions of removing, squeezing, and sniffing the suitcases did not constitute an illegal seizure or search, and that probable cause existed to detain the suitcases and seek a warrant. The court also affirmed the government's concessio
• United States v. Corral-Franco
  848 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal test to determine if an arrest occurred, and that the case must be remanded for reconsideration under the proper 'reasonable person' standard.
• United States v. Deerman
  837 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that retrial on importation counts was not barred by double jeopardy, as the jury was manifestly deadlocked, and collateral estoppel did not bar telephone facilitation charges because the jury's acquittal on possession counts did not necessarily resolve the issue o
• State v. McDANIEL
  508 So. 2d 371· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-02-25 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of an information charging defendant with cannabis possession with intent to sell and simple possession. The court reversed, holding that possession of cannabis with intent to sell constitutes a third-degree felony under Florida law, givi
• United States v. Burnett
  791 F.2d 64· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the discovery of marijuana in plain view provided probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including containers within it, justifying the seizure of cocaine found in a champagne box in the trunk.
• United States v. Henke
  775 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and probable cause to search it based on the totality of the circumstances and the odor of marijuana.
• United States v. Grubbs
  773 F.2d 599· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Otero-Hernandez
  743 F.2d 857· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that delay caused by codefendants is excludable from the speedy trial calculation for a defendant joined in a multi-defendant trial, even if the defendant himself did not cause the delay.
• United States v. Herrera-Britto
  739 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings.
• United States v. Hoskins
  735 F.2d 1006· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of marijuana plants in an open field did not violate the Fourth Amendment, following the Supreme Court's 'open fields' doctrine.
• Carter v. United States
  729 F.2d 935· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant under the totality of the circumstances test, and that the district court did not err regarding the burden of proof for the warrantless search.
• United States v. Burnie Rogers and Johnny Albert Callahan
  719 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the denial of the severance motion and suppression motion were proper.
• United States v. Ladd
  704 F.2d 134· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plea agreements were not breached by the imposition of fines and that the search warrant was valid.