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 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
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a vehicle's engine compartment was permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by probable cause, even if the probable cause argument was not initially raised by the government.
-
The court held that a district court's announcement of a blanket prohibition against readbacks of testimony before jury deliberations is reversible error.
-
The court held that the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea was contingent on review of the presentence report and that the district court failed to adequately state its reasons for the sentencing enhancement, requiring remand.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion for a new trial, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that prior drug sales, even if not part of the offense of conviction, can be included in calculating the base offense level if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.
-
-
The court held that the defendant waived her double jeopardy claim by consenting to a mistrial and that collateral estoppel did not bar retrial because the jury's acquittal on the importation charge did not necessarily decide the issue of knowledge in her favor.
-
The dissent argues that the majority's reasoning improperly extends the Terry stop doctrine into private residences and misapplies the totality of the circumstances test, thereby eroding Fourth Amendment protections.
-
The court held that a document filed with the district court within forty days of judgment, even if not a formal notice of appeal, can confer jurisdiction if later validated by a motion to extend time.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search was voluntary and the secondary inspection was permissible, affirming his conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the failure to advise him of the potential for supervised release extension, entitling him to plead anew.
-
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.
-
The court held that the admission of a non-testifying witness's statement as substantive evidence of guilt for gun possession constituted prejudicial hearsay, requiring reversal of those convictions.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines by adding offense levels for an aggravating role and by basing the sentence on the intended purchase of a full ton of marijuana.
-
A "standing alone" jury instruction, stating that character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt, is not required in federal criminal trials. The court also held that an agent's testimony regarding general DEA policy on informant reliability, in response to defense cross-ex
-
The court affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute and the denial of the motion for a new trial, but affirmed the acquittal on the conspiracy charge, suggesting en banc review for the latter.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial judge's concerns about evidence tampering did not warrant acquittal or reversal, and that the jury's role in assessing credibility was paramount.
-
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and therefore reversed that conviction and a related firearm conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, but sufficient for other drug and weapons offenses, and that the search of the vehicle was justified. The court also found no Brady violation regarding an alleged witness agreement.
-
The court held that warrantless border searches were supported by reasonable suspicion and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury did not warrant dismissal of the indictment.
-
The court affirmed the district court's enhancement for possession of firearms but remanded for further findings regarding the classification of a small quantity of drugs as cocaine base.
-
The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the defendant's confession, supporting her conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Lodato's convictions, the 'oral intercept' was properly authorized, the exclusion of the answering machine tape was within the court's discretion, and drug dependency is not a basis for downward departure under the guidel
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce the defendant's sentence for acceptance of responsibility, nor in calculating his criminal history points.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct or in denying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion to dismiss for ineffective assistance of counsel, in restricting testimony, in refusing to admit evidence, in denying the motion in limine, or in calculating the sentence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting or excluding evidence, or in its jury instructions, and affirmed the convictions.
-
The court held that the undisclosed evidence was not material, meaning there was no reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the trial.
-
The court held that criminal history points were properly assessed and that evidence seized from the defendant's truck and person was admissible.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute, and that the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines was not appealable.
-
The court held that a witness's testimony about their understanding of an immunity agreement, which required truthful testimony, did not constitute improper vouching by the government. The court also held that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing a sen
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no plain error regarding a witness's mention of prior imprisonment, and no Brady violation.
-
The court held that cumulative special assessments are mandatory per count, and special parole was correctly imposed based on the law in effect at the time of the offense.
-
565 So. 2d 402·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1990-08-13
·cited 2×
Sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell constitute a single offense, not two separate offenses, so a defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for both crimes.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding entrapment, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing reduction, and Brady violations.
-
The court held that the consent to search and the defendant's flight did not sufficiently attenuate the connection between the initial unconstitutional intrusion and the discovery of evidence.
-
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply to state searches conducted by state officers with state warrants, even if the evidence is used in a federal prosecution. Such searches need only conform to federal constitutional standards.
-
The court held that a defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of a mistrial, even when counsel believes a mistrial is in the defendant's best interest, prevents the defendant from later claiming the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances and that the defendant's claims of police misconduct were unfounded. The court also vacated the non-Guidelines sentence, remanding for
-
The court held that the "open fields" doctrine applies even if the defendant posted "No Trespassing" signs and erected fences, and that a medical necessity defense was not available due to a legal alternative. The court also found no abuse of discretion in jury selection or delib
-
The court held that the district court did not err in finding exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry to prevent destruction of evidence or flight of suspects.
-
The court held that a defendant's repeated denials of ownership of a suitcase preclude him from asserting a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in its contents, even if the detention of the suitcase ripened into a de facto arrest.
-
Appellants waived their Posse Comitatus Act claims by failing to raise them in an appropriate pretrial motion.
-
The court held that the evidence was properly seized pursuant to a consensual search, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
-
The concurring judge disagrees with the circuit's developing law regarding when retaining an airline ticket constitutes a seizure.
-
The court held that the search warrant was not impermissibly broad and that there was sufficient evidence to support the firearm conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior drug transactions to show intent and knowledge, nor was there improper prosecutorial comment on the failure to call an alibi witness.
-
A defendant charged with drug importation and possession need not know the specific type or amount of the controlled substance, only that they possessed a controlled substance.