Evans v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Horsley v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

    Case No. 8:14-cv-930-T-36AAS (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2017)

    Viewing that evidence "in the light most favorable to the prosecution," Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, a rational jury could have inferred that Petitioner was attempting to hide the bag of drugs in a wall in a location known for drug dealing, and that he intended to sell the heroin. See Evans v. State, 368 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) ("one could reasonably infer from the facts, i. e., the large amount of marijuana seized and the way it was packaged, that the marijuana was intended not for appellants' personal use but rather for resale."); Rawlings v. State, 979 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (evidence that defendant had 31 individual bags of marijuana on him with a total weight of 28.8 grams, coupled with officer's testimony that the amount of marijuana and packaging of it was consistent with sales, was "sufficient to allow the issue of intent to reach the jury."); Brose v. State, 32 So. 3d 144, 147-148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Farmer, J., dissenting) ("[T]he stolen substance possessed by the defendant was packaged in 31 individual baggies. If the possessor intends only to smoke the entire lot himself, why go to the trouble of packaging it in 31 individual baggies?") (citing Rawlings).

  2. K.J. v. State

    557 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The large amount of marijuana and the way it was packaged supports the inference that it was not intended for defendant's personal use but rather for resale. See Evans v. State, 368 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (inference that marijuana was not for personal use but rather for resale arises from the way it was packaged); K.M. v. State, 545 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (packaging in addition to quantity of drugs is circumstantial evidence of intent to sell). Affirmed.

  3. Pedroso v. State

    376 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

    Affirmed. See Webb v. State, 373 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Evans v. State, 368 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and Skelton v. State, 349 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

  4. Flynn v. State

    374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 7 times
    Placing items in black plastic garbage bags fails to manifest expectation of privacy

    Placing items in a black plastic garbage bag fails to manifest an expectation of privacy. Evans v. State, 368 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Compare, Arkansas v. Sanders, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). AFFIRMED.

  5. Dennis v. State

    373 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    However, in this case, once the contraband was legally discovered in the truck, consent or a search warrant was not required for the further inspection of the truck at the jail. See Evans v. State, 368 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Also compare Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), in which the court sustained a warrantless search of an automobile at the station house after officers had probable cause to, and did, arrest the vehicle's occupants. The trial court was justified in denying appellant's motion to suppress.

  6. Webb v. State

    373 So. 2d 400 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming without addressing one of two suppression issues on ground not legally dispositive where plea entered pre-Brown

    Under the rationale of the foregoing cases even if we agree with appellant that the evidence seized from the briefcase, or the paper bag, or both, should have been suppressed, there is nothing in the record of this case that would show that the state's case against appellant could not succeed without the use of this evidence. We have already upheld the seizure of 300 pounds of marijuana found in the trunk, and we note that it has been held that possession of a large quantity of marijuana in itself is sufficient to justify the inference that it was being held for distribution or resale, rather than for personal use. Evans v. State, 368 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We are inclined to agree with appellant's contention that search of the briefcase inside the car was unlawful without a warrant.