Markman v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--512,67--512 |
| Parties | Ira Dennis MARKMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Angelo A. Ali, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was charged with possession of narcotics, in violation of § 398.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Following non-jury trial, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced accordingly. He takes this appeal, and the only point preserved for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
The record on appeal reveals that the appellant and one Fischer had rented an apartment in Miami Beach. Pursuant to a search warrant, municipal police entered said apartment wherein they found contraband, contrary to the statute. The appellant was not present. The evidence indicated that in addition to his and Fischer's right to reside in the apartment, a certain third person named Goldfinger had access thereto and that the appellant spent very little time in the premises. The evidence was also to the effect that between the time the appellant had last been in the premises and the search, at least one-half dozen other people had entered the premises.
The evidence appears to be insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. If the premises had been in the sole custody and control of the appellant the contrary conclusion would apply, and the judgment should be affirmed. However, it is apparent that when the premises were in the joint control of the appellant and others, different principles apply. See: Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, wherein the following is found at page 120:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 79-459
...Marijuana found in bus which defendant and others lived. Eight persons were present in bus when contraband discovered; Markman v. State, 210 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Defendant was co-lessee of apartment and not present when contraband was found. Other persons also had access to premise......
-
Reis v. State, s. 70--853
...in her possession. See Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 321; Chariott v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 359; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486; and Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d In Frank, supra, it was held that proof of knowledge in such cases might consist o......
-
People v. Valot
...may correct the judgment to disclose that Defendant was convicted of control rather than possession of marijuana.'6 See Markman v. State (Fla.App., 1968), 210 So.2d 486; People v. Jackson (1961), 23 Ill.2d 360, 178 N.E.2d 320; Colbaugh v. United States (C.A.8, 1926), 15 F.2d 929.7 It has be......
-
Thompson v. State
...DCA 1973); Torres v. State, 253 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Langdon v. State, 235 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and Markham v. State, 210 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). These cases, like their progenitors Spataro and Frank themselves, recite the dicta that constructive possession is provab......