From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 10, 1999
744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that dominion and control were not proven where a pipe was found in plain view on the floorboard of the car near the gas pedal while the defendant was driving with a passenger

Summary of this case from K.A.K. v. State

Opinion

No. 98-04966.

Opinion filed November 10, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County, Robert P. Cole, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann Pfeiffer Howe, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Chastity Cruz ("Cruz") appeals her conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine (Count I) and the possession of cocaine (Count II). She argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence and the trial court erred in not granting her motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the conviction on Count I without further comment but reverse as to Count II.

The State charged Cruz in Count II with the possession of a crack pipe that contained cocaine residue. Police found the pipe on the floorboard of the car Cruz was driving at the time law enforcement stopped her. At trial, the officer testified that the pipe was in plain view, only four to five inches from the gas pedal. The testimony also showed that a passenger was in the car at the time of the stop.

The State suggests that since the pipe was so close to Cruz's feet, she had dominion and control, and that since it was in plain view, she had the requisite knowledge. However, when the contraband is not on the actual person but is found in a jointly occupied vehicle, knowledge and ability to control cannot be inferred but must be shown by independent proof. See E.A.M. v. State, 684 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The State failed to present such proof, and the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count II.

We affirm as to Count I and reverse as to Count II.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.


Summaries of

Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 10, 1999
744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that dominion and control were not proven where a pipe was found in plain view on the floorboard of the car near the gas pedal while the defendant was driving with a passenger

Summary of this case from K.A.K. v. State

ruling that the State failed to prove the element of control when the only evidence on that point was that drug paraphernalia was found four to five inches from the convicted driver's foot

Summary of this case from Watson v. State

reversing conviction for possession of cocaine-pipe residue-where crack pipe was found four or five inches from the gas pedal of the car the defendant was driving because it was also occupied by a passenger

Summary of this case from D.M.C. v. State

reversing conviction for possession of cocaine — pipe residue — where crack pipe was found four or five inches from the gas pedal of the car the defendant was driving because it was also occupied by a passenger

Summary of this case from C.M. v. State
Case details for

Cruz v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHASTITY ANNE CRUZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 10, 1999

Citations

744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Martoral v. State

See Torres v. State, 520 So.2d 78, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (noting that "[m]ere proximity to contraband,…

Jiles v. State

See J.M. v. State, 839 So.2d 832, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Jiles relies principally on Hargrove v. State, 928…