State v. Becker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Becker

559 So. 2d 704, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461, 1990 WL 41572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1240

StatusPublished

This text of 559 So. 2d 704 (State v. Becker) 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

State v. Becker, 559 So. 2d 704, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461, 1990 WL 41572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

We reverse an order dismissing charges, entered on the basis of defendant’s sworn motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), and the state’s demurrer.

The facts are sketchy but undisputed. In the course of executing a search warrant in a boarding house, officers found cocaine and paraphernalia (a Coca-Cola can fashioned into a pipe used for “freebasing” cocaine). This contraband was found in the closet in a room rented and occupied solely by the defendant. The defendant’s affidavit stated that there were three other occupants of the house, each of whom rents a separate bedroom, but that each “has access” to the others’ rooms. The affidavit also stated that “[a]t no time did the [defendant have physical possession of the [C]oca-[C]ola can.”

These statements are insufficient to negate constructive possession. Cf. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Williams v. State, 529 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 991 (Fla.1989). We find inapposite those circumstances in which a person charged with constructive possession is not the occupant. See Brooks v. State, 501 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here the contraband was in the defendant’s closet in his own room. Under such circumstances, [705]*705knowledge may be inferred. E.g., Williams v. State.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

STONE, Judge.

We reverse an order dismissing charges, entered on the basis of defendant’s sworn motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), and the state’s demurrer.

The facts are sketchy but undisputed. In the course of executing a search warrant in a boarding house, officers found cocaine and paraphernalia (a Coca-Cola can fashioned into a pipe used for “freebasing” cocaine). This contraband was found in the closet in a room rented and occupied solely by the defendant. The defendant’s affidavit stated that there were three other occupants of the house, each of whom rents a separate bedroom, but that each “has access” to the others’ rooms. The affidavit also stated that “[a]t no time did the [defendant have physical possession of the [C]oca-[C]ola can.”

These statements are insufficient to negate constructive possession. Cf. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Williams v. State, 529 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 991 (Fla.1989). We find inapposite those circumstances in which a person charged with constructive possession is not the occupant. See Brooks v. State, 501 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here the contraband was in the defendant’s closet in his own room. Under such circumstances, [705]*705knowledge may be inferred. E.g., Williams v. State.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 704, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461, 1990 WL 41572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-becker-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack