Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine

1,645 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 299 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Pagel
  854 F.2d 267· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-16
  The court held that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful under parole search regulations and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and the exclusion of defense photographs was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Dorsey
  852 F.2d 1068· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-29
  The court held that fingerprint evidence was admissible to connect the defendant to the offense and that pretrial detention was proper under the Bail Reform Act.
• Twanda L. KEY v. State
  528 So. 2d 916· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-22 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Twanda Key appeals her convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine, arguing that the dual convictions violate double jeopardy because they arise from a single act. The court applied controlling precedent from Gordon v. State to hold that both con
• Mixon v. State
  528 So. 2d 523· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-20 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that convicting a defendant for both possession with intent to sell and sale of the same cocaine violates double jeopardy principles.
• Wilson v. State
  530 So. 2d 347· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-20 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
• Linton v. State
  530 So. 2d 345· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-20 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
• United States v. Corrado Bonfant
  851 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·via Aiding And Abetting Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims of Fifth Amendment violations and insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Daulton McKIE
  831 F.2d 819· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-27
  The court held that a subsequent guilty verdict by the petit jury renders harmless any conceivable error in the grand jury charging decision, including alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Johnston
  810 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-10
  The court held that suppression of evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the agents did not use patient records to initiate or substantiate criminal charges against the defendant, and the "fatal blow" came from another individual's statement.
• United States v. Simmons
  643 F. Supp. 290· S.D. Fla.· 1986-08-22
  The Court reversed the Magistrate's pre-trial detention order, finding that the defendant rebutted the presumption of detention and setting conditions for release.
• United States v. Jurn
  766 F.2d 465· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22
  The court held that the district court did not err in calculating excludable days under the Speedy Trial Act, and thus the defendant's trial did not violate the Act's seventy-day limit.
• United States v. Wilson
  758 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-26
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and searches of the vehicle were justified under exceptions to the warrant requirement, including reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the automobile exception.
• Ferrazzoli v. State
  442 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-16
  Appellant was charged with drug trafficking and related offenses after a controlled drug buy. The trial court denied suppression motions without holding a formal evidentiary hearing as required by Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(h)(3). The appellate court reversed and reman
• United States v. Lewis
  708 F.2d 1078· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-09
  The use of a trained dog to sniff luggage for narcotics does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and a minor grammatical error in a search warrant does not invalidate it.
• United States v. Wallraff
  705 F.2d 980· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-20
  The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Enriquez
  675 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-06
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's automobile's passenger compartment, including a container found therein, was permissible as incident to a lawful arrest.
• State v. Carlton Hamilton
  409 So. 2d 211· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-03 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that officers had probable cause to conduct a protective search of a box in the car after being informed of a gun's presence, and subsequent searches were also lawful.
• Williams v. State
  407 So. 2d 640· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-12-16 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  Reversed and remanded because the trial court's adjudication of trafficking in cocaine did not match the jury's verdict of the lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver.
• United States v. Cherral Dickinson
  636 F.2d 219· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·via Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell
  The court held that the appellant waived her right to challenge the evidence's suppression by failing to file a motion to suppress or object at trial.
• United States v. Sinn
  622 F.2d 415· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-19
  The court held that evidence of prior misconduct was admissible to prove intent or knowledge.
• United States v. Erickson
  611 F.2d 255· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-26
  The court held that the charge of possession with intent to distribute was valid even after a portion of the cocaine was distributed, and that the jury instruction regarding the legality of synthetic cocaine was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Hauser
  603 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-24
  The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant is admissible, even if obtained after an allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest, if the evidence is not the fruit of that arrest.
• United States v. Rivera
  554 F.2d 1375· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-01
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by ample evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error.
• Braxton Russell v. United States
  507 F.2d 1029· 4th Cir.· 1974-12-27
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for simple possession was valid, as it did not rely on the unconstitutional presumption, but the sentence was vacated due to the district court misapprehending the applicable sentencing range.