Bedford v. State, 995 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Bedford v. State, 995 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Harris v. State (fladistctapp, 2011-11-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Richards v. State, 37 So.3d 925, 926-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (evidence sufficient to submit to jury the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell where defendant possessed a coin purse containing seven small plastic bags of white powdery substance, one of which tested positive for cocaine, and the officer testified that the defendant’s method of storage was inconsistent with personal use); Bedford v. State, 995 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“As to inferring intent to sell, the circumstantial evidence observed by the officer, including the number of packages of d…
discussed Cited "see" Richards v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bedford v. State, 995 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Willie Melvin BEDFORD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
4D07-4201.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec 3, 2008.
995 So. 2d 1122
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Y. McIntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to sell both cocaine and marijuana. He challenges his convictions claiming that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. He maintains that the state failed to prove that he had knowledge of the drugs[*1123] found inside a container which an officer observed appellant hide. In addition, he also claims that the state failed to prove intent to sell. As to knowledge of the drugs, because the officer saw appellant in actual possession of the container in which the drugs were found, knowledge may be inferred from the exclusive possession of the substance. See Gartrell v. State, 626 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Fla.1993). As to inferring intent to sell, the circumstantial evidence observed by the officer, including the number of packages of drugs found, together with the officer's testimony that the number and type of packaging was consistent with the sale of drugs, was sufficient to submit the issue of intent to the jury. See Bruce v. State, 616 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. We therefore affirm.

WARNER, FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.