Canady v. State - 73 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Rule:

Trafficking is defined as either, to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of property or, to buy, receive, possess, obtain control of, or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of such property. § 812.012(8)(a),(b), Fla. Stat. (2008)

Facts:

During the three-day trial, a police detective testified that he was an undercover trying to make arrests for dealing in stolen property. He was dressed in disheveled clothing to pass as a drug addict. He also carried around with him a brandnew Xbox 360 videogame system and a car radio in a tattered garbage bag. The police detective came into contact with appellant Edrawin Canady at his place of work, a commercial garage, and tried to sell the Xbox and the radio. Appellant was standing with another individual at the time. Appellant initiated contact by calling out to the detective to ask what he had in the bag. The detective explained that he had a new Xbox which he got from a friend. Both the appellant and the other guy inspected the items in the bag and began to negotiate a price with the detective. Appellant initially offered to pay sixty dollars in cash for both items. The detective testified that this amount was way below market value for both items. Eventually, the other guy offered to throw in forty-dollars worth of crack cocaine, to which the detective agreed. Appellant handed the detective sixty dollars in cash and the other guy removed a bottle containing crack cocaine from a nearby car and handed it to the detective. When the appellant and the other guy took the Xbox and the radio, the detective left and signaled to nearby police officers. The two were arrested on the spot. The jury found appellant guilty of both delivery of cocaine and dealing in stolen property. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years in prison for each conviction, to be served concurrently. The appellant appealed his convictions and argued on appeal that no evidence was offered to support a conviction for dealing in stolen property. 

Issue:

Was the appellant’s conviction for delivery of cocaine and dealing in stolen property proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court thoroughly reviewed appellant’s arguments as to the delivery of cocaine conviction and found them to be without merit. However, the court agreed with the appellant’s assertion that no evidence was presented to support a conviction for dealing in stolen property. The court held that as to appellant’s intent to sell the items after purchasing them, there was no evidence presented. The appellee state pointed to no factor which would allow an inference that appellant intended to sell the items later beyond bare assertions. Moreover, appellant never admitted that he intended to sell the items. Thus, simply proving that an individual purchased stolen property was insufficient to support a conviction for dealing in stolen property, which required proof of a subsequent actual sale or the intent to sell later. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of dealing in stolen property.