CLL v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
CLL v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Jackson v. State (fladistctapp, 2002-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Nelson v. State, 707 So.2d 405, 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that evidence of six individually wrapped pieces of cocaine was insufficient to support conviction of possession with intent to sell); Williams v. State, 569 So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (vacating conviction of possession with intent to sell where State proved possession of ten pieces of cocaine, marijuana rolling papers, $72 in cash and a weapon); C.L.L. v. State, 566 So.2d 878, 878-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (adjudicating juvenile delinquent of lesser offense of possession of cocaine where evidence showed possession of te…
discussed Cited "see" Martin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.L.L. v. State, 566 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (finding no intent to sell because there was no testimony that quantity and packaging were indications of an intent to sell, as opposed to holding contraband for personal use).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Valentin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also C.L.L., 566 So.2d at 878 (finding no intent to sell because the "officer did not testify that the quantity and packaging were indicative of an intent to sell, as opposed to holding the contraband for personal use").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Glenn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See id.; see also C.L.L. v. State, 566 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(evidence that juvenile possessed ten cocaine rocks that were wrapped in individual plastic bags was insufficient to establish that juvenile possessed the cocaine with intent to sell, absent evidence that quantity and packaging were indicative of intent to sell.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." D.R.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 1378 ; see also C.L.L. v. State, 566 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reversing defendant’s adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine with intent to sell where “officer did not testify that the quantity and packaging of [rock cocaine] were indicative of an intent to sell, as opposed to holding the contraband for personal use”).
C.L.L., a Juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
89-2916.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sep 11, 1990.
566 So. 2d 878
Hubbart, Ferguson and Cope.
Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Avi Litwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

C.L.L. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. He concedes that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of possession, but contends that the evidence does not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence with respect to the charge of possession with intent to sell, namely, that he possessed the contraband for personal use. We agree.

C.L.L. was stopped by a police officer initially because there was probable cause to believe he had committed a trespass in an unoccupied trailer park. C.L.L. dropped a plastic bag which contained ten cocaine rocks, each packaged in an individual small zip-lock plastic bag. The ten cocaine rocks collectively weighed one gram.

At trial the police officer testified that the method of packaging used in this case is a common method of packaging rock cocaine. The officer did not testify that the quantity and packaging were indicative of an intent to sell, as opposed to holding the contraband for personal use. In other words, assuming arguendo that a seller might hold cocaine packaged in this fashion for purposes of sale, the record fails to negate the hypothesis that C.L.L. was a buyer who had purchased the cocaine for personal use. See McCullough v. State, 541 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The trier of fact could have considered appropriate[*879] expert testimony on the point, but none was offered in this case.

The State relies on K.M. v. State, 545 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), but the ruling in that case depended not only on the packaging of the drugs but also the officer's expert testimony. The result we reach is consistent with both McCullough and K.M.[*] Accordingly, we reverse insofar as the trial court found that C.L.L. possessed cocaine with intent to sell, but affirm the adjudication of delinquency on the basis that C.L.L. had committed the lesser offense of possession of cocaine.

[*] Indeed, K.M. relied on McCullough. 545 So.2d at 464.