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 evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the cocaine's existence or aided and abetted its possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search and that their detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, thus affirming their convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, excluding prior bad acts evidence, admitting telephone records, or denying a missing witness instruction, affirming the conviction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in its Jencks Act determinations, its admission of coconspirator statements, its jury instructions, or its sentencing procedures, and that any errors were harmless.
-
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.
-
The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court affirmed Centracchio's sentence and Guth's sentence on the conspiracy count, but remanded Guth's sentence on the possession count for a determination of whether his conduct extended beyond the effective date of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The court held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction if there is any evidence, however weak, that rationally supports acquittal on the greater offense and conviction on the lesser.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that confessions were voluntary, severance was not required, and evidence was sufficient for convictions and sentencing enhancements.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The court held that the traffic stop was valid, the defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and the search did not exceed the scope of the consent.
-
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.
-
The court held that the government's remedies for a defendant's breach of an informal immunity agreement are limited to those specified in the agreement itself, and cannot include prosecuting the defendant for the underlying immunized offenses if the agreement only permits prosec
-
The court held that a prior conviction punishable by more than one year imprisonment is a felony for career offender status, regardless of state law classification or juvenile sentencing, if committed after age 18.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Martin's convictions and that Vaughn's claims of severance, unlawful search, and improper admission of a photograph did not warrant reversal.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The court affirmed Ramirez's conviction, reversed Sanchez's money laundering conviction, and remanded for resentencing.
-
The court held that the district court erred in enhancing the defendant's sentence for weapon possession because the weapon was not possessed during the offense of conviction, but affirmed the other sentencing decisions.
-
The court affirmed Billy Hoyt's conviction but remanded Jimmie Elvis's sentence for further factual findings regarding the quantity of cocaine attributable to him.
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to follow the prior mandate of this court, which had determined that the defendant could not be held accountable for the full quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the appellants' residence lacked probable cause, and thus the evidence seized should have been suppressed. The search warrant was also found to be unsupported by probable cause.
-
The court held that the defendant's post-arrest statement, elicited by police conduct that was the functional equivalent of interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel, was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and that the sentencing enhancements were properly applied.
-
The court held that the passenger's furtive movements provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk, and that the driver waived his challenge to the warrantless car search by failing to properly raise it before the trial court.
-
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
-
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).
-
The court held that the district court's refusal to give an addict-informant instruction, when the informant's testimony was uncorroborated on crucial points, constituted plain error depriving the defendant of a fair trial.
-
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.
-
The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the district court erred by failing to make required findings on controverted facts in the presentence report before sentencing.
-
The court held that the arrest of the defendant was lawful because officers had reasonable suspicion of drug-related activity and probable cause to arrest after cocaine was discovered in plain view, thus the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a container within a car is permissible under the automobile exception, and that a prosecutor's improper vouching for a witness did not prejudice the defendant due to curative instructions.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the defendant waived his right to counsel of choice by failing to raise the issue in the district court and that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the officer lacked founded suspicion to stop the vehicle, and therefore the evidence found should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop, the subsequent seizure of evidence was lawful, the jury selection was proper, the admission of parole officer testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and the sentencing determinations under the
-
The court held that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, including enhancements for special skill and criminal history, and that the sentence did not violate the ex post facto clause.
-
A prior New Jersey conviction classified as a 'high misdemeanor' is considered a 'felony' for the purpose of federal sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) if it is punishable by more than one year imprisonment.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of its contents.
-
The court held that the encounter between the officers and the defendant was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary.
-
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.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for possession with intent to distribute, and that the sentence was correctly based on the original amount of cocaine intercepted.
-
575 So. 2d 243·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1991-02-08
·cited 4×
Albert St. Clair appeals his convictions for cocaine possession and delivery. The court vacates the possession conviction for lack of evidence that St. Clair ever possessed the cocaine, but affirms his delivery conviction, holding that a defendant can be convicted of drug deliver
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining that relevant information was not intentionally withheld for search warrants and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the indictment was multiplicitous as to the possession counts because the defendant's contemporaneous possession of cocaine in his pocket and in the hotel room constituted a single offense. The court also held the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the delay caused by the continuance from the seventy-day Speedy Trial Act period.
-
The court held that the term "any criminal sentence" in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) includes unsupervised probation, and therefore the district court properly added two points to the defendant's criminal history score.