Grandison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grandison v. State

926 So. 2d 447, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5409, 2006 WL 941955

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 13, 2006·No. No. 1D05-2946·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his convictions for possession of cannabis and cocaine. Because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove his actual dr constructive possession of the contraband, the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Hill v. State, 736 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Watson v. State, 877 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Cruz v. State, 744 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Agee v. State, 522 [448] So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We accordingly reverse the appellant’s convictions and remand this case with directions that he be discharged.

ALLEN, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ„ Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his convictions for possession of cannabis and cocaine. Because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove his actual dr constructive possession of the contraband, the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Hill v. State, 736 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Watson v. State, 877 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Cruz v. State, 744 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Agee v. State, 522 [448] So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We accordingly reverse the appellant’s convictions and remand this case with directions that he be discharged.

ALLEN, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ„ Concur.

Grandison v. State, 926 So. 2d 447, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5409, 2006 WL 941955 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

926 So. 2d 447 (Grandison v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related