Wiley v. State

• Decision Date: 03 June 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2D18-878
• Parties: Allen Michael WILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

296 So.3d 979

Allen Michael WILEY, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-878

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 3, 2020

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Allen Michael Wiley appeals six convictions for possessing a variety of illegal items that were found when police searched his home. We agree with his argument that the State failed to prove that he constructively possessed items police seized from a locked safe in a jointly occupied master bedroom. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions concerning the contents of the safe.

While executing a warrant to search the home that Wiley rented with his girlfriend, Tara Hewitt, police discovered several kinds of contraband. They spied a small bag containing methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA, in plain view on the kitchen counter. In the master bedroom they found a locked safe containing four mason jars that variously held heroin, marijuana, cocaine, small plastic bags, and cutting materials. Wiley's thumbprint was on the inside of the lid of the jar containing marijuana, but there were no other items inside the safe that might connect the contents to any particular person. Also in the master bedroom, law enforcement discovered Wiley's wallet and several prescription pill bottles bearing Hewitt's name. Based on the results of the search, the State charged Wiley with one count each of possession of heroin, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, possession of MDMA, possession of drug paraphernalia, and knowing possession of a premises used to sell a controlled substance.

Because Wiley was not found in actual possession of the drugs in the safe, the State was required to prove that he had constructive possession of them, meaning that Wiley (1) "had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence" and (2) "had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the contraband." Santiago v. State, 991 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). If "the premises where the officers found the contraband were in joint, rather than exclusive, possession, one cannot infer either the ‘knowledge’ or ‘ability to maintain dominion and control’ element from mere ownership of the residence or proximity to the contraband. The State must establish both elements by independent proof." Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Here, Wiley and Hewitt were in joint possession of the home, including the bedroom where the safe was located. Both Wiley and Hewitt were listed on the lease as tenants, both were present at the time of the search, and both had property in that bedroom, i.e., Wiley's wallet and the prescription bottles bearing Hewitt's name. Those facts were sufficient to demonstrate joint possession. See Mitchell v. State, 958 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding joint possession of a home when both the defendant and his girlfriend were present at the time of the search and the girlfriend was listed on the lease as the lessee, giving her the ability to enter the premises at will); see also Diaz v. State, 884 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding joint possession of the premises when the location where the contraband was found was "accessible" to three different people); Edmond v. State, 963 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that the premises was jointly possessed when "a bill addressed to [the defendant] and identification belonging to [the defendant] were found in a bedroom, a juvenile female was found in [another] bedroom, and there was evidence that another man claimed the house was his).

Because the dwelling was jointly possessed, the State was required to demonstrate Wiley's constructive possession of the contents of the safe by independent proof. See Evans, 32 So. 3d at 190. "Generally, independent proof can be established by the admission into evidence of a pretrial statement made by an accused, by witness testimony, or by scientific evidence." Santiago, 991 So. 2d at 442. The State asserts that it submitted independent proof in the form of Wiley's fingerprint on the lid of one of the mason jars found in the safe, specifically the one containing the marijuana.

However, a fingerprint on an item containing contraband does not in itself prove the defendant's knowledge of the container's contents, because the fingerprint just as likely could have predated the introduction of the contraband into the container. See Chavez v. State, 702 So. 2d 1307, 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that defendant's fingerprints on foil that was wrapped around baggies containing methamphetamine were insufficient to prove defendant's knowledge of the methamphetamine's presence when there was no evidence that the fingerprints were placed on the foil after the drugs were present); Tanksley v. State, 332 So. 2d 76, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding that defendant's fingerprint on a heroin-containing envelope that was on the ground about fifteen feet away from the defendant was insufficient to prove the defendant's knowledge of the heroin's presence); Doles v. State, 990 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession when "[t]he only evidence directly connecting the appellant to the cocaine and marijuana, which were found in an open shoe box lying in the unenclosed yard of a residence, was his fingerprints on the outside of the box" and "[t]here was no evidence establishing when he was in contact with the box or otherwise indicating that he had knowledge of the presence of the drugs inside and the ability to exercise and maintain control over them"); Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515, 516–17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) ("The fingerprint proves quite conclusively that appellant touched the can [containing a marijuana plant]. It tells us nothing about when. It could have been before the plant was in the can or it could have been afterwards. Obviously the trier of fact thought it probable that the print was made after the plant's presence in the can was manifest. But guilt cannot rest on mere probabilities. It is no less probable that the print was made before the plant was put in the can or perhaps while it contained a seed not yet visible. The State's hypothesis that the print proves possession, even if we held it consistent with guilt, is no less consistent with innocence.").

The State relies on two cases in support of its argument that the evidence was sufficient to establish Wiley's constructive possession of the items in the safe. First, in Knight v. State, 172 So. 3d 990, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), multiple types of narcotics and various items commonly used in drug distribution were found "in close proximity to, or in the same containers with, personal items of Appellant's," specifically:

The

...