Ross v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ross v. State

285 So. 2d 429, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1973

DocketNo. 73-759

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 So. 2d 429 (Ross v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. State, 285 So. 2d 429, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violating, F. S., Section 790.23, F.S.A., which makes unlawful the “care, custody, possession or control” of any firearm by a convicted felon. He contends on appeal that the state did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. We disagree.

Appellant was arrested at the premises of another which was entered by police pursuant to a search warrant. At his non-jury trial, a police officer testified that upon entry he observed the appellant seated on the floor with his hand on a pillow. The officer stated that he witnessed a fellow officer uncover a firearm beneath the same pillow where the appellant’s hand rested. Appellant argues that these circumstances fail to prove that he had physical or constructive possession of the firearm, or that he knew of its presence. We think the evidence clearly was sufficient to prove appellant exercised “care, custody, possession or control” of the firearm. Wood v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 484; see also, Maloney v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 581. The judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violating, F. S., Section 790.23, F.S.A., which makes unlawful the “care, custody, possession or control” of any firearm by a convicted felon. He contends on appeal that the state did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. We disagree.

Appellant was arrested at the premises of another which was entered by police pursuant to a search warrant. At his non-jury trial, a police officer testified that upon entry he observed the appellant seated on the floor with his hand on a pillow. The officer stated that he witnessed a fellow officer uncover a firearm beneath the same pillow where the appellant’s hand rested. Appellant argues that these circumstances fail to prove that he had physical or constructive possession of the firearm, or that he knew of its presence. We think the evidence clearly was sufficient to prove appellant exercised “care, custody, possession or control” of the firearm. Wood v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 484; see also, Maloney v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 581. The judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 So. 2d 429, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack