State v. Savarino
| Decision Date | 28 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1286,79-1286 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 734 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Lawrence Allen SAVARINO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.
The state appeals from an order of the trial court which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss an information charging him with possession of dilaudid (a controlled substance) in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1977). Because this appeal comes from a pretrial dismissal pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) and not from a jury verdict, the sole question before us is whether the state's traverse was sufficient to place a material issue of fact into dispute or to demonstrate that the uncontroverted facts do establish a prima facie case of guilt. Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We hold that the state's traverse was sufficient and we therefore reverse.
In the defendant's motion to dismiss it was alleged that the defendant was arrested while driving a motor vehicle which was owned by an individual other than the defendant. It was further alleged that the controlled substance was not in defendant's physical possession but rather was found on the floorboard of the passenger's side of the vehicle. The defendant submits that these facts do not show a prima facie case of guilt. In its traverse, the state admitted the facts alleged by the defendant but added the additional facts that the defendant had failed certain field sobriety tests, had a breathalyzer reading of .00, and had to enter the car on the passenger's side because the driver's door was inoperable.
We hold that this was sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss by the defendant. We stress, however, that we are only holding that the motion to dismiss should have been denied. The state conceded here that the vehicle was not in the exclusive possession of the defendant. At trial the state has the burden of proving the defendant's constructive possession of the controlled substance. In such a case, this must be done by proof of the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance and his ability to reduce it to his control. Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Griffin v. State, 276 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Paleveda, 98-05003.
...1995); State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); S.T.N. v. State, 474 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also State v. Savarino, 381 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Cummings v. State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The undisputed facts alleged in Paleveda's motion to dismiss show t......
-
State v. Jones
...712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Cramer, 383 So.2d 254, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 388 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1980); State v. Savarino, 381 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).3 We agree with the state's observation that section 914.23 does not address the evil of tampering with a witness as d......
-
State v. Alford, 80-756
...the uncontroverted facts do establish a prima facie case of guilt. Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State v. Savarino, 381 So.2d 734 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Under this rationale, it must be determined in the case now before us whether the facts established a prima facie case o......
-
State v. Cramer, 79-1354
...arrived on the scene. We find these facts sufficient to set out a prima facie case to withstand a motion to dismiss. State v. Savarino, 381 So.2d 734 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Whether the State can prove constructive possession at trial by refuting all reasonable hypotheses of innocence to this ci......