Prescott v. State, No. 96-4180.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-4180. |
| Citation | 753 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | Anthony PRESCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sylvie Perez Posner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to deliver or sell within 1000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell within 1000 feet of a school. The drugs, together with drug paraphernalia, were found in Appellant's apartment1 across the street from a school. Although others may have had access, the apartment was used by Appellant as a residence.
Deputies, executing a search warrant, found miscellaneous drug paraphernalia in the apartment, along with a tea pot with 24 manila envelopes containing marijuana, clear plastic baggies in the kitchen cabinets with either marijuana or one or two rocks of cocaine in each package, and a large baggie containing approximately 6.4 grams of crack cocaine individually wrapped in commonly sold sizes. They also found a digital scale commonly used by dealers to measure cocaine. There was expert testimony that the amount of cocaine and cannabis confiscated was consistent with that found on others arrested for dealing in those drugs, and that such a large amount was not consistent with mere personal use.
During jury deliberation, the jury made the following inquiry:
In order to find the defendant guilty of charge A, does it have [to] be proven that he was intending to sell the drugs 1000 feet from the school, or that the drugs were found 1000 feet from the school.
In response, the court informed the jury:
The answer is, that it does not have to be proved that he possessed the drugs with intent to sell them or deliver them within the thousand feet of the school.
A juror then stated, "In other words, it doesn't matter if he sells them in Timbuktu, it's where the thousand feet comes into play." The court responded, "right." We conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the statute prohibiting possession of the contraband within 1000 feet of a school with intent to sell it, anywhere.
Florida Statute Section 893.13(1)(c) (1995) provides that:
Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.
The statute is not ambiguous. In this case, the prohibited conduct is possession with intent to deliver and sell. The fact that this offense occurs within 1000 feet of a school is a factor only in increasing the degree of crime charged and in the nature of the sentence. The statute applies to anyone who possesses drugs with intent to sell, as long as the possession occurs within 1000 feet of a school. There is no requirement that the state also prove that the defendant intended the sale to take place within 1000 feet of the school. Cf. Jennings v. State, 682 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1996). It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State, 1D98-4813.
...sale, the State relies on a number of Florida decisions that are materially distinguishable on their facts. See, e.g., Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (experts in streetlevel narcotics sales were properly allowed to testify about whether cocaine and cannabis confiscated......
-
Spry v. State
...intent crosses the line from providing expert testimony to simply telling the jury how to decide the case); Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (concluding that experts in street-level narcotics sales were properly allowed to testify about whether cocaine and cannabis confi......
-
Luis v. State, 2D02-3275.
...contrary, the Third and Fourth Districts have allowed qualified experts to testify to the defendant's intent. See Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify that the drugs were intended fo......
-
Spry v. State
...zone. Where the offense occurs affects only the degree of the crime and the extent of the potential sentence. Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Read as a whole, the statute establishes that the place of the possession with intent to sell controls, not the defendant'......
-
Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Confusion, at Common Law and Under the Model Penal Code
...will eventually sell the drug). [293]. See People v. Atlas, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307 (Dist. Ct. App. 1998). [294]. See Prescott v. State, 753 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (noting that defendant's home was across the street from school). [295]. See United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 17......