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

• Sims v. State
  425 So. 2d 563· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-15 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  This case involves seven defendants charged with marijuana possession who appealed the partial denial of their motions to suppress evidence. The court addressed standing under Fourth Amendment doctrine following the Supreme Court's recession from the automatic standing rule in Jo
• United States v. Maier
  691 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the police's inventory search of the locked camper portion of the vehicle was valid under the Fourth Amendment. The discovery of a large sum of money in the cab justified extending the inventory search to the camper for the owner's property protection.
• United States v. Allen
  690 F.2d 409· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding and subsequent discovery of marijuana was lawful under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) and the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Finch
  679 F.2d 1083· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 4×
  Customs officers had authority to investigate and seize marijuana, and a single search warrant was sufficient for the vehicle and its contents.
• United States v. Moorman
  660 F.2d 106· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for judgments of acquittal.
• United States v. Rivera
  654 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would have found the warrantless core sampling constitutionally permissible and reversed the suppression order.
• United States v. Lupo
  652 F.2d 723· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the automobile trunks were permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and that the introduction of a piece of paper and limitations on marijuana species evidence were not erroneous.
• United States v. Roldan Guillen-Linares
  636 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the capacity in which the boarding party acted (Coast Guard or Customs agents) is determinative of the boarding's validity and requires further factual findings by the district court.
• Retherford v. State
  386 So. 2d 881· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-08-18 ·cited 4×
  Billy Retherford was convicted of three drug offenses, including separate counts for possession of marijuana and hashish with intent to distribute. The appellate court held that marijuana and hashish are both forms of cannabis under Florida law and therefore constitute the same o
• United States v. Tex Michael Abrams
  598 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Border Patrol's actions did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
• Alva Nick Davis v. State
  371 So. 2d 721· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-06-13 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Davis was convicted on two drug charges and sentenced to five years on count II (unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia). The Florida appellate court vacated the sentence on count II because the information failed to allege facts necessary to make it a felony, requiring that t
• United States v. Olivera
  582 F.2d 24· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Sarita checkpoint was the functional equivalent of the border at the time of the seizure, making the search legally permissible.
• United States v. Barela
  571 F.2d 1108· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conviction must be affirmed because the officers conducting the search lacked notice that checkpoint searches were constitutionally impermissible at the time of the search.
• Helms v. State
  349 So. 2d 726· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-08-23 ·cited 4×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Tony Helms appealed his conviction on three counts of marijuana possession with intent to sell and one count of accessory after the fact. The court affirmed the possession convictions but reversed the accessory conviction, finding insufficient evidence that Helms intended to help
• United States v. Sircovich
  555 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a trial court is not obligated to give a jury instruction regarding co-defendants' Fifth Amendment invocation if there is no record that the privilege was actually claimed in the presence of the jury.
• United States v. Garza
  554 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.
• United States v. Strong
  552 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances, including the vehicle's low-riding trunk, the occupants' nervousness, an implausible explanation for a missing key, denial of car ownership, and evasive driving, created probable cause to search the vehicle at a permanent Border
• United States v. Allen
  537 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of the house, and therefore, the information gained from that search could not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The denial of counsel's motion to withdraw was also affirmed.
• United States v. Cantu
  510 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was valid as it occurred at the functional equivalent of the border, and the contraband did not need to be introduced at trial due to stipulations.
• United States v. Prohart
  469 F.2d 1089· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to rationally conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Ruelas-Altamirano
  463 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing expert testimony, denying a mistrial, or in its handling of the interpreter.
• Friedson v. State
  207 So. 3d 961· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-12-16 ·cited 3×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Matthew Friedson appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his apartment via search warrant. The court found that detectives exceeded the scope of a lawful knock-and-talk by moving off the front porch to peer through a window and smell marijuana from the
• Thomas v. State
  125 So. 3d 874· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-04-17 ·cited 3×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Jesse Thomas appealed his convictions for racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, drug possession, and other crimes. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, rejecting arguments that the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor lacked jurisdiction, that in
• Blake v. State
  21 So. 3d 129· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-11-04 ·cited 3×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation based on the evidence presented, but that the grand theft charge could not independently sustain the revocation.
• United States v. Salam Daniel
  932 F.2d 517· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that even if the first statement was coerced, the second, independently admissible statement was voluntary and sufficient to uphold the conviction, and any error in admitting the first statement was harmless.
• United States v. Ezequiel Contreras-Castro
  825 F.2d 185· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to ask the venire whether they would be more likely to believe the testimony of a law enforcement officer solely due to their position.
• United States v. Miller
  693 F.2d 1051· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• Laughlin v. State
  323 So. 2d 691· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-11-12 ·cited 3×
  Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for marijuana possession, rejecting sufficiency-of-evidence claims and holding that a trial court cannot compel a newspaper reporter to reveal confidential sources without violating First Amendment protections.
• Bennett v. State
  111 So. 3d 983· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-05-06 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  Cody Bennett appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle search based on a police dog's alert. The court affirms, holding that under the U.S. Supreme Court's
• Tavares Antwan Williams v. State
  976 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-03-26 ·cited 2×
  Tavares Williams was convicted by jury of selling cocaine and marijuana within 1000 feet of a school and public housing facility. The appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of guilt bec
• Henderson v. State
  952 So. 2d 1269· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-04-13 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  Sherman Henderson was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a public housing facility. The court reversed because the 1000-foot proximity enhancement did not take effect until after Henderson committed the offense; the applicable 2002 statut
• C.L.C. v. State
  868 So. 2d 685· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-04-02 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
• C.C. v. State
  823 So. 2d 263· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-08-07 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
• Zackery Shabazz Peterson v. State
  743 So. 2d 1134· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-09-22 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
  In this direct criminal appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Peterson's conviction for simple possession of marijuana and his habitual felony offender sentence for possession with intent to sell, finding a double jeopardy violation under Paccione v. State and an il
• Paccione v. State
  676 So. 2d 529· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-17 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell
• Boschen v. State
  647 So. 2d 1054· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-12-22 ·cited 2×·via Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell
  The court held that there is no double jeopardy issue with Counts 10 and 11, but one of Counts 12 or 13 must be vacated due to double jeopardy concerns with Count 11.
• United States v. Wiley
  997 F.2d 378· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the government did not violate immunity agreements, evidence was admissible despite Miranda issues, forfeiture was supported, and speedy trial rights were not violated.
• United States v. Innamorati
  996 F.2d 456· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, remanding for resentencing. The court also addressed the admissibility of grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Perkins
  994 F.2d 1184· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a bill of particulars or in its sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Crawford
  991 F.2d 1328· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that undelivered marijuana negotiated by the defendant, even if not part of a conspiracy conviction, can be attributed to him for sentencing if it was part of the same course of conduct and reasonably foreseeable, and if the defendant intended and was capable of co
• United States v. Harley
  990 F.2d 1340· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to challenge the suppression ruling by failing to object below, and that the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion or plain error. The court also affirmed that a lesser included offense does not require a l
• United States v. Coleman
  990 F.2d 419· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact to explain its drug quantity determination and its denial of a minor-participant reduction, requiring a remand.
• United States v. Montgomery
  990 F.2d 266· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for the conspiracy and firearm charges, and no prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Acosta
  989 F.2d 384· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the undercarriage inspection was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, the dog's alert provided probable cause, and a stipulation of weight for trial purposes is binding for sentencing.
• United States v. Graham
  982 F.2d 315· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in attributing 100 pounds of marijuana to the defendant nor in sentencing him as a career offender.
• United States v. Marcelino Millan-Diaz
  975 F.2d 720· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the continued detention and search of the defendant's vehicle exceeded the scope of a lawful investigative stop, rendering the evidence and statements inadmissible.
• United States v. Penn
  974 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the jury instruction on false exculpatory statements and the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice were proper.
• United States v. Thomas
  963 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in calculating the defendant's base offense level by including foreseeable drug quantities from the conspiracy and in refusing to decrease the offense level for minor or minimal participation.
• United States v. Moralez
  964 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and that his various claims of error, including denial of a suppression hearing, improper prosecutorial argument, sentencing enhancement, and ineffective assistance of counsel, were
• United States v. Larsen
  952 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) has extraterritorial jurisdiction, as congressional intent can be inferred from the nature of illegal drug trafficking.