State v. Rodriguez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Rodriguez

531 So. 2d 415, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4280, 1988 WL 98578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2682

StatusPublished

This text of 531 So. 2d 415 (State v. Rodriguez) 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. Rodriguez, 531 So. 2d 415, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4280, 1988 WL 98578 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal, under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4), of the information charging the defendant Raul Emilio Rodriguez with attempted sale of marijuana because, on this record, the material undisputed facts of the case fail to establish that the said defendant did not have knowledge or control of the marijuana seized by police from the trunk of the vehicle which was leased by the defendant in this case. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the material undisputed facts give rise to a reasonable jury inference that the defendant, at the request of the co-conspirator Raimundo Lopez, brought the marijuana involved in the subject attempted sale to the scene of the purported sale in the defendant’s rental vehicle and turned over the keys of the said vehicle to the co-conspirator Lopez so as to facilitate the attempted sale. This being so, a dismissal under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) was inappropriate, State v. Pentecost, 397 So.2d 711, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Bailey, 508 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1987); State v. Fuller, 463 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and is hereby

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal, under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4), of the information charging the defendant Raul Emilio Rodriguez with attempted sale of marijuana because, on this record, the material undisputed facts of the case fail to establish that the said defendant did not have knowledge or control of the marijuana seized by police from the trunk of the vehicle which was leased by the defendant in this case. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the material undisputed facts give rise to a reasonable jury inference that the defendant, at the request of the co-conspirator Raimundo Lopez, brought the marijuana involved in the subject attempted sale to the scene of the purported sale in the defendant’s rental vehicle and turned over the keys of the said vehicle to the co-conspirator Lopez so as to facilitate the attempted sale. This being so, a dismissal under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) was inappropriate, State v. Pentecost, 397 So.2d 711, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Bailey, 508 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1987); State v. Fuller, 463 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and is hereby

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 415, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4280, 1988 WL 98578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodriguez-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack