State v. Farrugia, AD-266
| Decision Date | 31 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AD-266,AD-266 |
| Citation | 419 So.2d 1118 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Francis FARRUGIA and Gregory S. Sullivan, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Fred Haddad of Sandstrom & Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
This cause is before us on appeal by the State from an order of the trial judge granting appellees' motions under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court dismissed the information charging appellees with trafficking in cannabis contrary to Section 893.135, Florida Statutes. 1 The information charges that appellees did "knowingly and unlawfully have in their actual or constructive possession in excess of 100 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds of cannabis." Approximately 1,700 pounds of cannabis were found in the cargo area of the vehicle, a pickup truck with camper shell, which bypassed an agricultural inspection station without stopping. At the time the vehicle was stopped, it was being operated by appellee Farrugia with appellee Sullivan as passenger.
Appellees filed motions to dismiss stating that neither appellee had means of access to the cargo area of the vehicle, which had to be forcibly entered by law enforcement officials; that there was nothing in the cargo area to impart knowledge on the part of defendant Sullivan of the presence of the contraband; that no personal items attributable to defendant Farrugia were found in the cargo area; that defendants were paid a certain sum to drive the vehicle but were unaware of its contents; and that the vehicle was not owned by either appellee. It is conceded that both appellees alternately drove the vehicle on a trip which originated in the state of Michigan and terminated with the arrest of appellees in Hamilton County, Florida. Photographs of the vehicle in the record show that the cab area, though separated from the camper, had an operable window in the rear forming a "pass through" to the front of the camper. Photographs further reveal that opaque curtains had been placed on all windows of the camper shell and were drawn. Nevertheless, the odor of marijuana was detected at the inspection station, and a search warrant was issued. Personal clothing and effects of both defendants were found in the front-seat area.
The foregoing facts are sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of possession on the part of both appellees and to defeat motions under Rule 3.190(c)(4).
Appellees' joint operation of the vehicle gave them possession and control. The question of knowledge of the nature of the cargo is an ultimate fact question, not subject to motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c), as held by this court in Cummings v. State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.App.1980). See, also, State v. Alford, 395 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Appellees would have us divide and consider separately control of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rita v. State
...knowledge of the illicit cargo. The state argues that the trial court's order should be affirmed on the authority of State v. Farrugia, 419 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In that case both defendants alternated in driving a pickup with a camper shell and were stopped by an agricultural ins......
-
State v. Paleveda, 98-05003.
...2d DCA 1996); Span v. State, 732 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Moffatt v. State, 583 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Farrugia, 419 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Since the material ......
-
State v. St. Jean
...factual inferences; it is not subject to a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). State v. Farrugia, 419 So.2d 1118, 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also S.T.N. v. State, 474 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (knowledge is not a proper issue to be decided on a mot......
-
State v. Duran, 88-2814
...factual inferences; it is not subject to a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). State v. Farrugia, 419 So.2d 1118, 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also S.T.N. v. State, 474 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (knowledge is not a proper issue to be decided on a mot......