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 held that the initial encounter was consensual, evolving into a lawful investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the detention of the bag was reasonable. Discovery and continuance issues were also resolved against the defendant.
-
The court held that cornmeal, used to mimic the appearance of cocaine bricks and not as a diluent or carrier facilitating distribution, does not constitute a 'mixture or substance' under Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(c) for the purpose of calculating drug weight.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions were not barred by double jeopardy, the indictments were not facially insufficient, and the evidence seized was admissible.
-
581 So. 2d 1304·
Fla.·
1991-07-03
·cited 7×
The legislature intended for possession and sale of the same narcotic to be separate crimes, allowing for separate convictions and punishments.
-
The court held that the delay caused by a codefendant's fugitive status was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or denying the motion for acquittal.
-
A vessel sailing under the flags of two or more states, using them according to convenience, can be assimilated to a stateless vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even if validly registered in a foreign country.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in acquitting a drug smuggler, arguing sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that Customs officers have authority to stop and board vessels in customs waters for document checks without suspicion, and that the plain view doctrine and probable cause justified the subsequent search. The court also found insufficient evidence for certain convi
-
The court held that a technical misdescription in the indictment, even if based on a mistaken statutory reference, does not invalidate convictions if the facts alleged and proved constitute a violation of federal criminal law.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment as a sanction for the government's refusal to provide a necessary state court transcript to indigent defendants.
-
The court held that the marijuana was seized illegally without probable cause, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
-
838 So. 2d 641·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2003-02-28
·cited 6×
Robert Barnes was convicted of marijuana possession with intent to sell after police found ten individually wrapped bags of marijuana and $4,476 in cash in his vehicle. On appeal, Barnes challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the intent-to-sell element, but the court affirmed
-
The United States appealed a district court's grant of a new trial to Dr. Vicaria following his narcotics conviction, arguing the court abused its discretion by reconsidering its refusal to give a jury instruction on the defendant's theory of the case. The Eleventh Circuit held t
-
The court held that the time granted for filing pretrial motions is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day calculation, and that the traffic stop was constitutional.
-
The court affirmed the jury verdict but reversed the sentence, remanding for a new sentencing hearing. The court held that the district court must determine the quantity of drugs a defendant could reasonably foresee as part of a conspiracy when sentencing under mandatory minimum
-
The court held that a per se reversal rule for admitting coconspirator hearsay without required findings is modified; instead, appellate courts should assess harmless error and may remand for findings if necessary. The hearsay error in this case was harmless.
-
The court held that for federal sentencing purposes, a marijuana cutting is considered a "plant" only if there is readily observable evidence of root formation, and not merely callus tissue.
-
The court held that an unloaded firearm found in proximity to drugs is sufficient to support a conviction for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for drug trafficking charges and that the trial court did not err in admitting the drug ledger or expert testimony.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, venue was proper for the use-of-a-juvenile charge, expert testimony was admissible, and the government need not prove the defendant knew the person used was underage.
-
The court held that the DEA agents' warrantless search of the residence fell within the protective sweep exception and that the district court did not err in excluding defendants from the in camera hearing for confidential informants.
-
The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficiently established, affirming the convictions, but that a prior New York conviction for criminal facilitation did not qualify as a 'felony drug offense' to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence, thus vacating the s
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the defendant's attorney from testifying, as her testimony would have been cumulative, and affirmed the sentencing enhancement for firearm possession, finding sufficient evidence of connection to t
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
A defendant's refusal to testify at a co-conspirator's trial after being granted immunity constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and that the district court did not err in its sentencing determination of the drug quantity.
-
The court affirmed the denial of motions to suppress evidence and statements, and the conviction, but vacated a portion of the sentence due to an incorrect penalty. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion challenging jury deliberations.
-
The court held that law enforcement officers were entitled to the Leon good faith exception, and that the defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
-
Defendants were convicted of cocaine importation and related offenses. The Eleventh Circuit reversed Thomas Roker's convictions for 1983 substantive offenses because the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the statute of limitations defense, which had an evide
-
The court held that the government's combined filings provided sufficient notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to allow for an enhanced sentence, even if one filing was defective on its own.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove an agreement to possess cocaine, as charged in the indictment, and therefore the conspiracy conviction should be reversed.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no plain error in the cross-examination, closing arguments, or jury instructions, and that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no error in the Batson challenge, venue determination, denial of self-representation or continuance, or severance motions.
-
The court held that the district court erred in relying solely on the presentence report's unsupported conclusions to determine drug quantities for sentencing, and that a serious question was raised regarding the attorney's conflict of interest. The court vacated the sentence and
-
The court held that prior cocaine transactions could be included as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, even if involving a different drug type, if they constituted the same course of conduct.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying a three-level upward adjustment for the defendant's supervisory role, but did not err in applying a two-level increase for weapon possession or denying a two-level decrease for minor participation.
-
The court held that striking a key defense witness's testimony for refusing to name a source, permitting inquiry into post-arrest silence, and providing erroneous jury instructions constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the government's conduct was not so outrageous as to violate due process, the district court's clarification of 'fronting' did not constructively amend the indictment, and the court correctly determined it lacked discretion to depart below the statutory minimu
-
The court held that the schoolyard provision of federal drug laws applies to a defendant who possesses drugs within 1,000 feet of a school with the intent to distribute those drugs at any location, not just within 1,000 feet of a school.
-
A defendant may not receive two separate convictions and sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using multiple firearms in relation to a single underlying drug trafficking offense. Only one conviction and sentence is permissible.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial and the conviction, finding no prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violation during resentencing, or double jeopardy violation.
-
The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately choosing to speak with a cooperating co-defendant despite his attorney's advice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, and the trial judge's conduct was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the drug quantity calculations used for sentencing.
-
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug offense, in its jury instructions regarding intent, or in limiting closing argument time.
-
The court should remand the firearm enhancement aspect of the sentence because the district court failed to articulate specific factual grounds for finding that the defendant reasonably should have foreseen his coconspirator's possession of the weapon.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's actions did not constitute reversible error, and the defendant received a fair trial despite minor improprieties.
-
The court held that the mandatory life sentence without parole for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, based on prior felony drug convictions, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, due process, or statutory intent.
-
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, remanding for clarification on whether the defendant's driver's license was retained by the officers.