56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all four defendants, finding no merit in their various challenges regarding speedy trial rights, suppression of evidence, jury bias, and sentencing enhancements.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance, no jurisdictional defect, and no error in admitting evidence.
-
A defendant waives their right to appeal an in limine ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction under Rule 609(a)(1) if they preemptively introduce that conviction during their own direct examination. Mandatory minimum sentence provisions in pre-existing statutes control
-
The court held that the encounter with the defendant was consensual and that there was reasonable suspicion to detain his luggage for a canine sniff, thus the motion to suppress was properly denied. The evidence was also sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in calculating the defendant's sentence by attributing additional kilograms of cocaine based on wrappers and by applying a firearm enhancement despite a prior acquittal on a weapons charge.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-point enhancement for the defendant's supervisory role in drug distribution, as the evidence supported a conspiracy between the defendant and his wife.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense and for the defendant's leadership role, nor in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in its Batson ruling, admitting evidence seized from a sub-let room, or in enhancing the sentence for firearm possession.
-
The court held that the initial encounters with the suspects were not seizures, the pat-down search was consensual, and the jury instructions on constructive possession were proper, with sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the admission of expert testimony regarding drug courier profiles was error but harmless, and the defendant was not denied an opportunity to respond to objections to the pre-sentence report.
-
The court held that a defendant's oral consent given in chambers, followed by silence in open court, can constitute a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to a twelve-member jury under Rule 23(b).
-
Sentencing a defendant for offense conduct known to the prosecution before trial but not charged in the indictment violates due process.
-
The court held that the traffic stop was lawful, the discovery of a concealed weapon provided probable cause for a search, pre-Miranda statements were admissible, and the guilty plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
-
The court held that the filing of a superseding indictment did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentence was improperly enhanced due to procedural non-compliance by the government.
-
The court held that the defendant was not unlawfully seized and waived his right to appeal the ruling on the clothing demonstration by failing to testify.
-
The court held that the tape recording of a conversation between the defendant and an informant may have been erroneously admitted because the record lacked evidence of consent to the interception, and this error was not harmless.
-
The court held that the admission of a buy report was harmless error and that the defendant's failure to pay Texas court costs meant he was under a criminal justice sentence, justifying an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that striking one of two black venirepersons, based solely on percentages, does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Batson, and that probable cause and consent for searches were validly established.
-
The court held that the district judge failed to adequately explain his departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, requiring a remand for resentencing. The supervised release sentence was affirmed.
-
The court held that the government's elicitation of testimony regarding a cooperating witness's past cooperation and convictions, and the use of codefendants' guilty pleas, were permissible for impeachment and credibility assessment, not as substantive evidence of guilt. The cour
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy to transport illegal drugs.
-
The court's use of 'slight evidence' or 'slight connection' language in conspiracy cases is problematic and should be reexamined or discarded in favor of clearer formulations.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient probable cause for arrest and search, admissible evidence, and adequate proof for conspiracy, possession, and Travel Act violations.
-
The court held that redacted affidavits supporting warrants are permissible when necessary to protect informant safety, provided the remaining information establishes probable cause and the defendant is given adequate notice of redactions. The court also affirmed the admissibilit
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give the jury an instruction on entrapment, nor in denying the motion for acquittal based on outrageous governmental conduct.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict against Hunter, and the detention of Cooper's luggage was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's locked briefcase was lawful as a search incident to arrest, and the indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon was sufficient.
-
The court held that the defendant was not entrapped as a matter of law and that her sentence, while lengthy, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or an abuse of discretion.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's suppression order, arguing that the driver did not have apparent authority to consent to the search of an enclosed compartment when the lessee was present.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence, including circumstantial corroboration of post-arrest statements, supported the conviction, and that the sentence was properly imposed.
-
The court held that a violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41's nighttime search requirements does not automatically require suppression of evidence, and the prejudicial error rule applies unless the violation was intentional or the search would not have occurred otherwise.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
529 So. 2d 787·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1988-07-29
·cited 8×
Hubert Leeks was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine. He appealed challenging both his trial court's restriction on his ability to display a facial scar to the jury and the constitutionality of receiving separate convictions for possession w
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the sealed boxes was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because the contents were previously lawfully discovered and there was no substantial likelihood the contents had been changed. The evidence was also sufficient to support th
-
The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile characteristics, suspicious behavior, and a large quantity of cocaine found.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and affirmed the conviction, finding the stop, seizure, and search warrant were lawful.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was proper.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the garage, the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the subsequent pat-down search were all lawful, supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the affidavit, based on a named informant's direct observation, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's finding of probable cause, and thus the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the absence of counsel at sentencing invalidates the sentences, requiring remand for resentencing. However, other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
-
The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence presented, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a prior acquittal on conspiracy charges does not necessarily preclude a subsequent conviction for substantive offenses or aiding and abetting, especially when the jury's verdict in the prior trial did not necessarily resolve the specific facts at issue in the
-
The court held that Pittsburgh International Airport can be considered the functional equivalent of a border for Fourth Amendment purposes when a package arrives from a foreign point of departure and remains under customs bond until searched at its final destination. The court al
-
The court held that Arthur Avery's perjury count was properly joined and severance was not warranted, but Alisa Avery's conviction must be reversed due to a Bruton violation from her father's grand jury testimony.
-
Evidence obtained after an illegal entry but pursuant to a subsequently obtained valid warrant is admissible if the warrant was not based on information from the illegal entry.
-
Customs officers do not have statutory authority to board vessels on the high seas, as this authority is limited to customs waters.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for the warrantless arrest of Bubis, and consequently, the arrest of Bass and the seizure of evidence were lawful.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and that their sentences and the seizure of the vessel were valid.