February 12, 2016

Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida - Conviction Tossed

Constructive Possession, Possession of Cocaine
Constructive Possession of Cocaine in
Florida - Conviction Tossed

What happens in a typical Constructive of Possession of Cocaine Case in Florida?


Here are excerpts from what a constructive possession appeals court court just did in Tampa Bay, Florida:

In March 2014, Manatee County Sheriff's deputies were called to a motel in Bradenton to investigate a possible robbery.  When they arrived, they encountered the victim who informed them she had been robbed by Edwards and his friend, Rachel Simms.  The officers located Edwards and Simms in a motel room and interviewed them.  During the investigation, the officers discovered a car key for a vehicle parked outside.  One of the officers had seen Edwards sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle a couple of hours prior to the robbery call.  As a result, the officers asked Edwards for consent to search the vehicle.  Edwards notified the officers that he did not own the vehicle but instead had borrowed it.  The officers then obtained consent from the owner of the vehicle, but the owner advised the officers that the key found in the motel room would only work in the vehicle's ignition.  It would not open the vehicle because the vehicle was equipped with a combination lock.  The owner gave the officers the combination to unlock the vehicle, but the evidence reflected that Edwards knew the combination as well.

During the search of the vehicle, one of the officers located a gray canvas bag under the driver's seat.  Inside that bag was a wallet that contained Edwards's identification card as well as a bail bond receipt bearing the name of "Joanne A. Simms."  The robbery victim's identification card was also found in the canvas bag along with a few other items that contained no identifying information.  The police report reflected that there was a smaller purple bag inside the canvas bag and inside that smaller bag was a plastic baggie containing rock cocaine.  The officer who found the cocaine testified that there was indeed a purple bag inside the canvas bag despite the fact that there was no purple bag submitted into evidence at the sheriff's office.
 "While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with . . . innocence."  
  
Edwards was arrested and charged with robbery with a firearm and possession of cocaine.  At trial, Simms testified regarding the events leading up to and including the alleged robbery.  However, her testimony revealed some inconsistencies regarding exactly when she had been inside the vehicle in question.  She at first admitted going with Edwards and the victim to get cigarettes, but she subsequently denied being in the vehicle on the day of the alleged robbery.  However, Edwards testified that on the relevant date, he, Simms, and the victim all got into the vehicle and went to a local convenience store to obtain cigarettes.  He testified that Simms drove the vehicle there.  He denied possessing the cocaine, and there was no evidence presented regarding ownership of the canvas bag or the purple bag within the canvas bag.  There was also no fingerprint evidence submitted. 
 

Edwards moved for judgment of acquittal arguing that the vehicle had been jointly occupied and that the State had failed to present independent proof that Edwards had knowledge of the cocaine and the ability to maintain dominion or control over it.  He proffered that it was possible that Simms or the victim placed the cocaine in the bag.  His motion was denied.

Ultimately, the jury acquitted Edwards of the armed robbery charge but found him guilty of the possession charge.  He was sentenced to a suspended five-year prison sentence and placed on one year of community control followed by two years of probation.  His license was also suspended, and a community service requirement was imposed. 


Why did the Florida Court Reverse the Drug Crime Conviction?


We employ de novo review over the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.  See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002).  We will only reverse if the conviction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence.  See id.  Yet "[w]here, as here, the evidence of the defendant's guilt is entirely circumstantial, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence."  Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)).

What does the Prosecutor Need to Prove to establish Possession of Cocaine in a Drug Crimes Case?

Here, Edwards was not found in physical possession of the cocaine and thus the State's case was predicated on constructive possession.  The State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Edwards knew of the presence of the cocaine and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it.  Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184; Jackson v. State, 995 So. 2d 535, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).  "The surrounding circumstances must support the inference of a 'conscious and substantial possession by the accused, as distinguished from a mere involuntary or superficial possession.' "  Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Reynolds v. State, 111 So. 285, 286 (Fla. 1926)).  "Mere proximity to contraband, without more, is legally insufficient to prove possession."  Id. (quoting Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). 
 
"As our case law has made clear, a defendant's knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements."
The evidence failed to show that Edwards had knowledge of the presence of or had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine.  Although he admitted borrowing the car, knew the combination to unlock it, and had been seen sitting in the driver's seat a couple of hours prior to the alleged robbery, he was not with the vehicle when the officers arrived.  Further, there was evidence presented that Simms and the victim had been in the vehicle with Edwards that day and that Simms had actually driven the vehicle.  

What happens in Drug Possession cases when the vehicle has multiple occupants?

Where the area in which drugs are found is in joint, rather than exclusive possession, a defendant's "knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof."  Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983)).  This can be done either "through 'evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or evidence of incriminating statements or circumstances, other than simple proximity to the contraband, from which the jury could infer the defendant's knowledge' of the contraband."  Id. (quoting Wagner v. State, 950 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).  "An inference of knowledge and dominion and control may . . . arise where the contraband located in [a] jointly occupied [area] is found in or about other personal property which is shown to be owned or controlled by the defendant."  Id. 

What happens in a Possession of Cocaine Case where the area that drugs were found was Jointly Occupied? 

However, in this case, the cocaine was found in an area that the evidence reflected had been jointly occupied, and the cocaine was found near personal property which was shown to be owned or controlled by at least three people including Edwards.  The victim's identification card was located inside the gray canvas bag, and a bail bond receipt bearing the name of "Joanne A. Simms" was found inside Edwards's wallet.  Consequently, under these limited circumstances, we refuse to apply an inference of Edwards's knowledge of the presence of and dominion and control over the cocaine.  Cf. Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 540-41 (holding that surrounding circumstances were sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that the drugs contained in a change purse located near the defendant were known to him and were under his dominion and control where the change purse appeared to have spilled from a larger purse, the defendant was known to carry a purse and there were no other purses in the dwelling, the defendant's identification was found inside a cigarette case that also appeared to have spilled from the purse, and there was no evidence in or around the purse or the change purse that they belonged to anyone other than defendant). 

What does Florida Courts do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied vehicle?

This court has previously reversed a conviction based on constructive possession where a defendant was in a jointly occupied vehicle and drugs were located near his personal belongings but the items were in an area to which the other passengers had equal access.1  See, e.g., S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that evidence was not inconsistent with the defendant's theory that   someone put marijuana in his bag where the bag was located inside the trunk and the marijuana was found inside another container that was inside the defendant's bag, where multiple people had access to the bag, and where the defendant disclaimed ownership of the container).  This is such a case.

What do Florida Courts do when there is a Jointly Occupied House?

Similar dispositions have occurred where drugs were found concealed near a defendant's personal property inside jointly occupied houses.  See, e.g., Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1183 (holding in relevant part that the State failed to prove constructive possession of drugs found inside a cardboard box where defendant's shirt was found because there was no evidence to prove who owned the other clothes in the box and defendant had a reasonable hypothesis that he threw his shirt on top of the box without knowing that the drugs were inside); N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession where, although drugs were found in a plastic bag inside defendant's wallet, defendant was never asked if the bag belonged to him, no fingerprints were lifted from the bag, defendant denied ownership of the bag, and multiple people had access to the room where his wallet was located); Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 189-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the State failed to prove constructive possession where drugs were hidden in a pain reliever bottle inside a small toiletry bag, which was itself inside a duffel bag that also contained the defendant's passport, but where no one was in actual possession of the duffel bag at the time of the search, multiple people had access to the room where the bag was found, no fingerprints were found on the duffel bag or pain reliever bottle, and no one was asked about ownership of the pill bottle). 

The proximity of Edwards's identification to the purple bag in which the cocaine was concealed might be consistent with his having knowledge of the cocaine and dominion and control over it.  Yet those facts are equally susceptible to the reasonable hypothesis that the cocaine was in the possession and control of Simms or the victim while they were in the vehicle and that Edwards simply threw his wallet into the gray canvas bag without knowing that the cocaine was inside.  See Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184.  Indeed, there was no evidence presented as to when the cocaine was placed in the purple bag or when the purple bag was placed inside the gray canvas bag.  See Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that presence of the defendant's passport in duffel bag suggests he placed it there, but explaining that "[s]uch an inference . . . provides no time frame with regard to when the contraband came to reside in the bag, nor any help as to appellant's present dominion over the contraband" and, therefore, the "mere presence of the passport" was insufficient to establish defendant's constructive possession).  The lack of a time frame for placement of the cocaine in either bag, combined with the lack of evidence regarding ownership of either bag, the lack of fingerprint evidence, and the fact that items belonging to persons other than Edwards were also located in the gray canvas bag lead us to conclude that the State's circumstantial evidence failed to prove that Edwards was in constructive possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine. While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with Edwards's hypothesis of innocence.
 

Reversed and remanded with instructions. 

What does a Florida Court do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied house?

We emphasize that it was the combination of these factors that requires us to reverse the judgment in this case.  We do not intend for this opinion to be interpreted as requiring reversal whenever drugs are located near a defendant's personal items that are commingled with personal items belonging to someone else.  As our case law has made clear, a defendant's knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements.  See Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539.  

Source: 

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2016/February/February%2012,%202016/2D15-612.pdf

February 2, 2016

Tampa Marijuana Attorney - Lawyer - Can Drug Charges be Dropped?


Tampa Marijuana Attorney asks: Can Drug Charges be Dropped? Yes, Florida Drug Court Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer Casey Ebsary of Tampa helps with, Marijuana, cocaine, prescription, and other drug charges that can be dropped. Tampa Bay area drug defense lawyer W. F. ''Casey'' Ebsary has experience and training as both a drug court Prosecutor and is now on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand. Call 813-222-2220 for a free consultation at no cost or obligation.

Tampa Marijuana Atttorney - Lawyer

January 23, 2016

Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220 centrallaw@centrallaw.com
Criminal Defense Attorney reviews.
"Casey's strong arguments during the hearing made all the difference ..."
W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.
4.9 / 5 stars


Casey is a Criminal lawyer and Drug Crimes defense attorney at the Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. in Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL. . Casey and his team can help you, a friend, or a loved one with misdemeanor, felony, and all types of drug charges  throughout Tampa Bay.

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.
Attorney Lawyer
Casey is a Criminal lawyer and DUI attorney at the Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. in Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL. . Casey and his team can help you, a friend, or a loved one with misdemeanor, felony, and drug charges, including possession of cannabis and prescription drug cases throughout Tampa Bay, Florida.

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com

January 22, 2016

Methamphetamine Case Tossed - Open Door and the Community Caretaker Function

Methamphetamine , Search and Seizure, search warrant
Warrantless entry
Medical Emergency
Community Caretaker

What Happens When Police Make a Warrantless Entry of a Home for Medical Emergency?


Treasure Island, Florida has become a hotbed of the methamphetamine world. So while on patrol, a cop saw an open door with mail on the floor near the mail slot. The decision was made to enter the home and make sure everyone was alright. Of course, while there, why not search the house and find some meth. Court says adios to this one. 

Given Central Florida's temperate weather in November, an open door at 8:00 in the morning, without more, cannot justify a warrantless entry based on a feared medical emergency or the community caretaker function.  


What happens when police make a warrantless entry of a motor vehicle?


Attorneys Note: Traffic cops use the community caretaker function to justify DUI arrests of drivers that are found sleeping in a parked car. In Florida, this is known as a DUI Actual Physical Control. You can see how a Florida Court addresses the seizure of a sleeping motorist.  Sometimes the opening of a door of a sleeping driver is handled the same way the court handled this Treasure Island case where the charges are thrown out after a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress is granted.

Complete Text of Methamphetamine, Warrantless Entry, Medical Emergency, Community Caretaker Opinion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

Case No. 2D14-5582
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,

v.        

JOHN FULTZ
Appellee.
                       
Opinion filed January 22, 2016.                 
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Chris Helinger, Judge.                   
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.                   

J. Andrew Crawford of J. Andrew Crawford, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.


SLEET, Judge.

The State appeals the order granting John Fultz's motion to suppress evidence in his criminal prosecution for possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver methamphetamine. In this case, we are called on to determine whether the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for a feared medical emergency or performance of a community caretaking function justified the warrantless entry and search of Fultz's home.  Because the police had no objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an emergency inside Fultz's residence to justify a warrantless search, we affirm.

Officer Lovelace, a patrol officer for the Treasure Island Police Department, was in the area of Fultz's townhouse at around 7:45 a.m. on November 26, 2013, where she had just completed a "house check" on a nearby home.1 Officer Lovelace testified that she had been previously contacted by a citizen who had been keeping traffic logs for Fultz's townhouse due to "suspicious foot traffic." Two weeks prior to the search at issue, Officer Hansell, a St. Petersburg police officer who lived in the area, told Officer Lovelace that he suspected there was drug activity at the townhouse. Further raising her suspicions, when Officer Lovelace reported for her shift roll call that morning, Patrol Sergeant DeShay informed her of unconfirmed information he received from an informant regarding a possible meth lab in the garage of the townhouse.

After conducting the requested house check, Officer Lovelace decided to drive by Fultz's townhouse, which she suspected contained a meth lab. As she was passing by, she noticed that the front door to the townhouse was open, a light was on upstairs, some mail was on the floor under the mail slot, the garage door was closed, and a car was parked in the driveway. Officer Lovelace testified that based on her suspicion of drug activity, she called for backup about a minute after observing the open door.
1Officer Lovelace testified that the residents of the home were out of town and had requested that Treasure Island police check in on their home, a service that Officer Lovelace routinely provides as a part of her patrol.

Sergeant DeShay and Officer Smallen arrived on the scene ten minutes later.  Before proceeding any further, DeShay contacted Detective Taylor in the Treasure Island police drug division and informed him of the situation, but Taylor declined to join them at the scene.  Notwithstanding, based on the open door, mail, and unconfirmed reports of drug activity, the three officers decided to enter the home to conduct a "welfare check" on the residents.  Sergeant DeShay testified that he knocked on the open door, announced "police," and then entered the residence. He immediately opened the door leading into the garage and discovered signs of an active meth lab. The trial court ultimately suppressed this evidence, and this appeal ensued.

A warrantless search of a home is "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment . . . and Article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution, subject to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." State v. Boyd, 615 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (quoting Cross v. State, 469 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA1985)); see also Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla. 2006). Exigent circumstances are one such exception that may justify a warrantless search, but the police must have an objectively reasonable basis to support their actions. Vanslyke v. State, 936 So. 2d 1218, 1221-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Brigham City v. Stuart, 547
U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Boyd, 615 So. 2d at 789 ("[T]o allow a warrantless entry into a person's home in an emergency situation, there must be objectively reasonable circumstances that convey to the police officer an articulable, reasonable belief that an emergency exists.").

The exigent circumstances exception is not a shortcut by which police may circumvent the requirement of a search warrant.  These exceptions are based on a police officer's ability to articulate objective facts which make the procuring of a warrant impractical. See Davis v. State, 834 So. 2d 322, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("The sine qua non of the exigent circumstances exception is 'a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.' " (quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978))). "[I]f time to get a warrant exists, the enforcement agency must use that time to obtain the warrant."  Herring v. State, 168 So. 3d 240, 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), review dismissed, 173 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1977)).

In this case, the State contends that the police were justified in entering Fultz's townhouse because they reasonably believed that the open door and scattered mail portended an emergency. Specifically, the State argues that two particular types of exigencies justified the police action in this case: the community caretaker exception and the feared medical emergency exception.

The community caretaker exception arises from the duty of police officers to "ensure the safety and welfare of the citizenry at large." Ortiz v. State, 24 So. 3d 596, 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 5.4(c), at 201-02 (4th ed. 2004)).  It is clear from our review of the record that the officers involved in this case were motivated by a desire to serve and protect the Treasure Island community. And this court has held that "the operation of a methamphetamine lab is inherently dangerous, presents an immediate threat to public safety, and is well within the scope of the exigent circumstance exception." Barth v. State, 955 So. 2d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). However, police community caretaker functions are "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973).  And to justify entry under this exigency, the police must have a reasonable belief that a meth lab is being operated within a residence "based on their experience, facts developed during investigation, and observance of [the suspect's] activities."  Barth, 955 So. 2d at 1118. 

In this case, the officers who entered Fultz's home did not have any special training related to meth labs, had not conducted any investigation into the reports of possible drug activity in the home, and had not made any observations of the residents or their activities that morning. Prior to the warrantless entry, police had not conducted any surveillance or controlled drug buys, made contact with Fultz, or initiated any other investigation into the potential criminal activity or habits of Fultz.  Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the police did not have a reasonable belief that could justify a warrantless entry under the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement.

The feared medical emergency exception "permits police to enter and investigate private premises to preserve life . . . or render first aid, provided they do not enter with an accompanying intent either to arrest or search." Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 280 (Fla. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Hornblower, 351 So. 2d at 718). This exigency recognizes that when there is a threat to safety and no time to secure a warrant, "the need to protect life and to prevent serious bodily injury provides justification for an otherwise invalid entry."  Vanslyke, 936 So. 2d at 1222 (quoting Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 279)).  However, the police must have an objectively reasonable fear that a medical emergency is occurring inside the residence.  See Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. 

                       The officers testified that the open door and the mail in the foyer coupled with their suspicions of an active meth lab led them to believe that someone inside had overdosed or was otherwise in need of immediate medical attention. The cases relied on by the State are distinguishable from the facts of this case because in each the officers' belief that there was an immediate need for their entry into the residence to address a medical emergency was based on more than just an open door, mail, and unconfirmed and uninvestigated reports of drug activity. See, e.g., State v. Shillingford, 136 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that exigent circumstances existed when officers summoned to investigate a domestic battery "arrived and observed [a] blood trail leading to [the defendant's] apartment[] and heard moaning coming from within the apartment"); Davis, 834 So. 2d 322 (holding that warrantless entry was lawful when a neighbor, who called police about a possible burglary, reported an open front door and the resident's dog was wandering outside and police observed signs of forced entry). In this case, the officers were not summoned to the residence for concerns regarding the residence or its occupants, did not see any blood or evidence of possible criminal activity, did not hear anything within the residence that would lead the officers to reasonably conclude that someone in the residence was in distress, and observed no signs of forced entry. The officers conducted no investigation into the unconfirmed reports of a meth lab on the premises and witnessed nothing consistent with the presence of a meth lab. There was nothing that could have led the officers to form an objectively reasonable belief that there was an ongoing medical emergency in the residence that required their immediate assistance.
 
We agree with the trial court that the Treasure Island Police Department's expressed policy of entering a home when they observe an open door and the residents fail to answer their hail is constitutionally troubling. There are many reasons that a citizen could leave a door to their home open; an open front door alone is not enough to support a reasonable belief that an exigency exists and cannot justify a warrantless entry into a residence.  See, e.g., Kyer v. Commonwealth, 612 S.E.2d 213, 217 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that an open door on an August night absent some other reason for concern could not support a reasonable belief that would justify entry under the exigent circumstances doctrine); State v. Christenson, 45 P.3d 511, 513 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) ("[A]n open door on a summer morning is not, in and of itself, a circumstance that could give rise to a reasonable belief that entry is necessary to prevent harm to persons or property. It is simply too common an event to create a concern of harm in the absence of other signs of trouble."). Given Central Florida's temperate weather in November, an open door at 8:00 in the morning, without more, cannot justify a warrantless entry based on a feared medical emergency or the community caretaker function.  As explained in Hornblower, the police may not "approach a dwelling, armed only with their own subjective suspicion that illegal activity was afoot, and wait for some . . . justification to break down the door and burst into the dwelling."  351 So. 2d at 718.

Accordingly, we affirm the order granting the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.  

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. 

January 15, 2016

Trafficking in Cannabis 25 to 2,000 Pounds | First Degree Felony | DRUG2905

2000 pounds, 893.135, DRUG2905, Mandatory Minimum 3 Years, Trafficking in cannabis 25 to 2000
Trafficking in Cannabis 25 to 2,000 893.135
Trafficking in Cannabis over 25 pounds is a First Degree Felony punishable by at least three (3) years in the Florida State Prison. This offense is also charged in growhouse cases when there are more that three-hundred (300) plants seized by law enforcement. Forfeiture of assets is a frequent flyer by law enforcement in these cases.

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Major Violator's Unit investigates drug trafficking offenses in the Tampa Bay area. Charge Code DRUG2905 is used by the court system when cases involve Trafficking in Cannabis 25 to 2,000 pounds. The charge is a First Degree Felony under Florida law.

893.135 Trafficking; mandatory sentences; suspension or reduction of sentences; conspiracy to engage in trafficking.

(a) Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, in excess of 25 pounds of cannabis, or 300 or more cannabis plants, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in cannabis,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity of cannabis involved:

1. Is in excess of 25 pounds, but less than 2,000 pounds, or is 300 or more cannabis plants, but not more than 2,000 cannabis plants, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $25,000.

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com

2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220
Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney Lawyer in Tampa, Florida Toll Free

January 14, 2016

DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

893.13.6A, DRUG9101, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney,
Possession Controlled Substance
This is the 11th on the list of over 1500 ways to land in Tampa, Florida's Hillsborough County Jail. Possession of a Controlled Substance is a Third Degree Felony that can be punished by 5 years in the Florida State Prison.

If you have been charged with DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG9101

Florida Statute: 893.13.6A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

(6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) If the offense is the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. For the purposes of this subsection, “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants of the genus Cannabis, or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.

(c) Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful to possess in excess of 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a) or (1)(b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. Any person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084.

(d) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of the laws of this state relating to arrest, a law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to believe is violating the provisions of this chapter relating to possession of cannabis.

January 7, 2016

250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes | Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida

Drug Crimes, Drug Laws, Florida Drug Crimes List, Tampa Drug crimes, Hillsborough Drug Crimes
There are 250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Tampa. There are 250 types of Drug Crimes Charged in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Here is a list of every type of drug crime charged in Hillsborough County. 

The list includes both felonies and misdemeanors, includes the Florida Statute, and a brief description of the charges.



250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Tampa, Florida


    Form Code   Statute                Level            Degree         Charge Description

Drug0801
817.563.2
Misd
1st
Sale Of Substance In Lieu Of Controlled Substa
Drug0802
817.563.1
Fel
3rd
Sale Of Substance In Lieu Of Controlled Substa
Drug0803
817.564.3
Fel
3rd
Poss.And Del. Of Counterfeit Controlled Substa
Drug1100
893.13.1f
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Cocaine
Fel
3rd
Fel
2nd
Drug1201
893.13.1a
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Deliver Cocaine
Fel
2nd
Drug1301
893.13.1e
Fel
1st
Poss Of Cocaine With Intent To Del Within 1000
Drug1302
893.13.1a1
Fel
1st
Armed Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Del
Drug1304
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell Manu
Drug1305
893.13.1i
Fel
1st
Poss Of Cocaine With Intent Within 200 Of Publ
Drug1306
893.13.1c
Fel
1st
Possess Of Cocaine With Intent To Deliver 1000
Drug1309
893.13.F1
Fel
1st
Poss Cocaine With Sell  Manufacture Or Deliver
Drug1310
893.13.1f1
Fel
2nd
Armed Possession Of Cocaine
Drug1311
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Possession Of Cocaine Win 1000 Feet Of A Schoo
Drug1311
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Deliver W
Drug1313
893.13.1b1
Fel
1st
Poss Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell Manufactur
Drug1315
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell Manu
Drug1400
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Sale Of Cocaine
Drug1600
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Purchase Of Cocaine
Drug1604
893.13.1i
Fel
1st
Purchase Cocaine Wthn 200 Feet Public Housing
Drug1606
893.13.2a
Fel
2nd
Purchase Of Cocaine
Drug1607
893.13.2a
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Purchase Cocaine
Drug1700
893.13.1e
Fel
1st
Delivery Of Cocaine Within 1000 Feet Of School
Drug1703
893.13.1i
Fel
1st
Delivery Of Cocaine Wthn 200 Feet Of Posted
Drug1704
893.13.1i
Fel
1st
Deliver Cocaine Wthn 200 Ft Of Public Housing
Drug1705
893.13.1i
Fel
1st
Deliver Cocaine Wthn 200 Ft Of Public Housing
Drug1706
893.13.1c
Fel
1st
Delivery Of Cocaine Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug1709
893.13.F1
Fel
1st
Delivery Cocaine Within 200 Ft Of Public Housi
Drug1710
893.13.4a
Fel
1st
Use Of Minor To Deliver Cocaine
Drug1712
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Sale Deliver Cocaine Win 1000 Ft Chld Care Fac
Drug1714
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Delivery Of Cocaine Within 1000 Feet Of School
Drug1715
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Delivery Of Cocaine Wtn 1000 Ft Public Housing
Drug1717
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Deliver Cocaine Wthn 1000 Feet Of Public Park
Drug1718
893.13.1d1
Fel
1st
Deliver Cocaine Win 1000 Ft Of  Post Secondart
Drug1720
893.13.7a1
Misd
1st
Unlawful Dispensing Of A Controlled Substance
Drug1801
893.13.1a1
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug1801
893.13.1a1
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug1802
893.13.1a2
Misd
1st
Solicitation To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug1803
893.13.2a1
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Purchase Controlled Substance
Drug1804
893.13.2a2
Misd
1st
Solicitation To Purchase Controlled Substance
Drug1896
893.1351.1
Fel
3rd
Own, Lease Rent To Traffic, Sell, Manufacture
Drug1897
893.1351.3
Fel
1st
Possession For Purpose Of Manufacturing A Cont
Drug1898
893.1351.2
Fel
2nd
Poss W/Purpose To Traffic, Sell Or Manufacture
Fel
1st
Drug1905
893.135.1b1b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Cocaine   200 To 400 Grams
Drug1906
893.135.1b1c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Cocaine   400 Grms To 150 Kilo
Drug1908
893.13.1a1
Fel
3rd
Conspiracy To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug1910
893.13.1a2
Misd
1st
Conspiracy To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug1914
893.135.1b1a
Fel
Life
Armed Trafficking In Cocaine   28 To 200 Grams
Drug1915
893.135.1b1b
Fel
Life
Armed Trafficking In Cocaine   200 To 400 Grms
Drug1916
893.135.1b1c
Fel
Life
Armed Trafficking In Cocaine   400 Grms To 150
Drug1918
893.13.6a
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Possess Controlled Substance
Drug2100
893.13.1f
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Cannabis
Fel
3rd
Misd
1st
Drug2104
893.13.6a
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Cannabis Sativa Resin
Drug2110
893.13.1g
Misd
1st
Possession Of Cannabis
Fel
3rd
Drug2201
893.13.1a
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Deliver Cannabis
Drug2204
893.13.1c
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of Cannabis Within 1000 Feet Of Schoo
Drug2212
893.13.3
Misd
1st
Delivery Of Less Than 20 Grams Of Cannabis
Fel
3rd
Drug2303
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Cann With Intent Within 200 Ft Post Ed
Drug2304
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Poss Cannabis With Intent To Sell    Manuf   D
Drug2305
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Cannabis With Intent Within 200 Ft Of
Drug2306
893.13.F2
Fel
2nd
Poss Cannabis Wit Sell   Manufacture Or Delive
Drug2309
893.13.1c
Fel
2nd
Poss Cannabis Wit Sell  Manufacture   Del 1000
Drug2311
893.13.1c
Fel
2nd
Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell Man
Drug2313
893.13.1d2
Fel
2nd
Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell Man
Drug2315
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell Pur
Drug2400
893.13.1a
Fel
3rd
Sale Of Cannabis
Drug2500
893.13.1a
Fel
3rd
Manufacture Of Cannabis
Drug2601
893.13.2a
Misd
1st
Solicitation To Purchase Cannabis
Drug2604
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Purchase Of Cannabis Within 200 Ft Of Public H
Drug2606
893.13.2a
Fel
3rd
Purchase Of Cannabis
Drug2703
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Del Of Cannabis Within 200 Ft Public Housing F
Drug2705
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Del Of Cannabis Within 200 Ft Of A Public Park
Drug2710
893.13.F2
Fel
2nd
Deliver Cannabis 200 Ft Public Housing Facilit
Drug2712
893.13.1d2
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of Cannabis Within 1000 Feet Of A Pos
Drug2717
893.13.1c2
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of Cannabis Within 100 Feet Of A Publ
Drug2720
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Deliver Cannabis Win 1000 Feet Public Housi
Drug2902
893.135.1a2
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Cannabis   2000 To 10000 Lbs
Drug2905
893.135.1a1
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Cannabis   25 To 2000 Pounds
Drug2906
893.135.1a1
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Cannabis  30 To 2000 Plants
Drug2910
893.135.1a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Trafficking In Cannabis
Drug3100
893.13.1f
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Heroin
Fel
3rd
Drug3200
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of Heroin
Drug3300
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Heroin With Intent To Sell Or Deliver
Drug3304
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Heroin With Intent To Sell Or Deliver
Drug3305
893.13.F1
Fel
1st
Poss Heroin Wit Sell Deliver Wthn 200 Ft Publi
Drug3310
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Possession Of Heroin With Intent To Sell And D
Drug3601
893.13.2a1
Fel
2nd
Purchase Of Heroin
Drug3812
893.135.1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Illegal Drug  4 To 14
Drug3813
893.135.1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Drugs  14 To 28 Grams
Drug3814
893.135.1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Illegal Drugs  28 To
Drug3816
893.135.1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Illegal Drugs  30 Kil
Drug3819
893.135.1c1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Heroin  4 To 24 Grams Clerks Of
Drug3901
893.135.1c1
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs   4 To 14 Grams
Drug3903
893.135.1c3
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs  28 Gram Or More
Drug3904
893.135.1c1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs  4 To 14 Grams
Drug3907
893.135.1c2
Fel
Life
Trafficking In Heroin More Than 30 Kilograms
Fel
1st
Drug3913
893.135.1c1b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs 14 To 28 Grams
Drug3914
893.135.1c1c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs 28 Gram To 30 Kil
Drug3916
893.135.1c2
Fel
1st, Life
Trafficking In Illegal Drugs 30 Kilo Or More
Drug3917
893.135.1c1c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Heroin
Drug3921
893.135.1c1a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Heroin
Drug3922
893.135.1c1b
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Heroin 14-28 Grams
Drug3923
893.135.1c1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Heroin 28-30 Kilogram
Drug3924
893.135.1c2
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Heroin 30 Kilo Or Mor
Drug3932
893.135.1c1a
Fel
2nd
Attempt To Traffic In Illegal Drugs 4 To 14 Gr
Drug3933
893.135.1c1b
Fel
2nd
Attempt To Traffic In Illegal Drugs 14 To 28 G
Drug3934
893.135.1c1c
Fel
2nd
Attempt To Traffic In Illegal Drugs 28 Grams T
Drug4101
893.13.6a
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Lsd
Drug4705
893.135.1l1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Lsd 1 To 5 Grams
Drug4800
893.1351.B1a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine 28 - 200 Gram
Drug4801
893.1351.B1b
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine 200-400 Grams
Drug4802
893.1351.B1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine 400 Grams To
Drug4803
893.135.1b2
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine 150 Kilograms
Drug4803
893.135.1b2
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine 150 Kilograms
Drug5901
893.135.1d1
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phencyclidine   28 To 200 Grams
Drug5902
893.135.1d2
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phencyclidine   200 To 400 Grms
Drug7815
893.135.1f1a
Fel
Life
Armed Trafficking In Methamphetamine  14 To 28
Drug7901
893.135.1f1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine   14 To 28 Grams
Drug7901
893.135.1f1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine   14 To 28 Grams
Drug7901
893.135.1f1a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine   14 To 28 Grams
Drug7902
893.135.1f1b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine   28 To 200 Grams
Drug7902
893.135.1f1b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine   28 To 200 Grams
Drug7903
893.135.1f1c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine 200 Grams Or More
Drug7903
893.135.1f1c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Amphetamine 200 Grams Or More
Drug8100
893.147.
Misd
1st
Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia
Drug8101
893.13.1a1
Fel
3rd
Solicitation To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug8110
893.147.2ab
Fel
3rd
Manufacture Or Delivery Of Drug Paraphernalia
Drug8120
893.147.4
Fel
3rd
Unlawful Transportation Of Drug Paraphernalia
Drug9050
877.111.4
Fel
3rd
Unlawful Distribution Of Nitrous Oxide
Drug9055
877.111.2
Misd
2nd
Possession Or Sale Of Harmful Chemical
Drug9098
877.111.
Misd
2nd
Inhalation Or Possession Of Harmful Substance
Drug9100
893.13.1f
Fel
3rd
Possession Of Controlled Substance
Fel
3rd
Drug9102
893.13.6c
Fel
1st
Poss Of Controlled Subst In Excess Of 10 Grams
Drug9103
893.13.1b
Fel
1st
Delivery Controlled Substance In Excess Of 10
Drug9105
893.13.6a
Fel
2nd
Armed Possession Of Controlled Substance





Fel






Drug9300
893.13.1a
Fel

Poss Cont Sub With Intent To Sell Or Deliver





Drug9301
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Armed Possession Of Controlled Substance With
Drug9302
893.13.1a
Fel
1st
Armed Possession Of Controlled Substance With
Drug9303
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Controlled Substance With Intent To Se
Drug9304
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Controlled Substance With Intent Sell
Drug9305
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Controlled Substance  With Intent Sell
Drug9306
893.13.F
Fel
2nd
Poss Controlled Subst Wit Sell 200 Ft Public H
Drug9309
893.13.1c1
Fel
1st
Possess Contrld Subst W Intent 1000 Ft Of Park
Drug9310
893.13.1d1
Fel
1st
Possession Of A Controlled Substance With Inte
Drug9311
893.13.1c2
Fel
2nd
Possess Contrld Sub W Intent Wtn 1000 Ft Park
Drug9312
893.13.1d2
Fel
2nd
Poss Of Control Sub With Intent To Sell Manufa
Drug9313
893.13.1a
Fel
1st
Armed Delivery Of A Controlled Substance
Drug9314
893.13.1a
Fel
2nd
Armed Delivery Of Controlled Substance
Drug9500
893.13.1a
Fel

Manufacture Of Controlled Substance
Drug9500
893.13.1a
Fel

Manufacture Of Controlled Substance
Drug9500
893.13.1a
Fel

Manufacture Of Controlled Substance
Drug9606
893.13.2a
Fel
3rd
Purchase Of Controlled Substance
Drug9607
893.13.5a
Fel
2nd
Importation Of Controlled Substance
Drug9608
893.13.5b
Fel
3rd
Importation Of Controlled Substance
Drug9705
893.135.1f1
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Methamphetamine
Drug9705
893.135.1f1
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Methamphetamine
Drug9706
893.135.1f1a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Amphetamine 14-28 Gr
Drug9707
893.135.1f1b
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Amphetamine 28-200 Gr
Drug9708
893.135.1f1c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Amphetamine    200 Gr
Drug9712
893.13.1c
Fel

Sale Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9712
893.13.1c
Fel

Sale Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9712
893.13.1c
Fel

Sale Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9713
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Deliver Of Controlled Substance Wtihin 200 Ft
Drug9714
893.13.1i
Fel
2nd
Deliver Of Controlled Substance Within 200 Ft
Drug9716
893.13.F
Fel
2nd
Del Controlled Substance 200 Ft Of Public Hous
Drug9719
893.13.4b
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of Controlled Substance To A Minor
Drug9722
893.13.4b
Fel
2nd
Use Of Minor To Deliver Controlled Substance
Drug9724
893.13.1d1
Fel
1st
Delivery Of A Controlled Substance Within 1000
Drug9725
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of A Controlled Substance Within 1000
Drug9725
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of A Controlled Substance Within 1000
Drug9726
893.13.1f2
Fel
2nd
Poss W/Int To Del Cont Subs Win 1000 Pub Hous
Drug9727
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Possession With Intent To Deliver A Controlled
Drug9728
893.13.1d2
Fel
2nd
Delivery Of A Controlled Substance Within 1000
Drug9730
893.13.1e
Fel

Poss. Cont Sub W/Intent W/In 1000 Ft Of Sch.
Drug9730
893.13.1e
Fel

Poss. Cont Sub W/Intent W/In 1000 Ft Of Sch.
Drug9730
893.13.1e
Fel

Poss. Cont Sub W/Intent W/In 1000 Ft Of Sch.
Drug9731
893.13.1c
Fel

Poss Cont Sub Wi Sell  Manuf  Del 1000 Ft Schl
Drug9731
893.13.1c
Fel

Poss Cont Sub Wi Sell  Manuf Del 1000 Ft Schl
Drug9731
893.13.1c
Fel

Poss Cont Sub Wi Sell Manuf Del 1000 Ft Schl
Drug9735
893.13.1f1
Fel
1st
Sale Contr Substance W/In 200 Ft Pub Housing
Drug9740
893.13.1e
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9740
893.13.1e
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9740
893.13.1e
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9741
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9741
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9741
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of School
Drug9742
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9742
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9742
893.13.1c
Fel

Delivery Of Cont Sub W/In 1000 Feet Of School
Drug9743
893.13.1c
Fel

Del Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of  Public Park
Drug9743
893.13.1c
Fel

Del Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of  Public Park
Drug9743
893.13.1c
Fel

Del Cont Sub Within 1000 Ft Of  Public Park
Drug9750
893.13.1e2
Fel
2nd
Controlled Substance Wthn 1000 Ft Of Convenien
Drug9751
893.13.1e1
Fel
1st
Controlled Substance Wthn 1000 Ft Of Convenien
Drug9757
893.13.1e2
Fel
2nd
Deliver Controlled Subst Wthn 1000 Ft Of Churc
Drug9758
893.131.E2
Fel
2nd
Poss With Intent To Del A Cont Sub 1000 Church
Drug9759
893.13.1e1
Fel
1st
Deliver Controlled Subs W-In 1000 Ft Of Church
Drug9760
893.13.1e1
Fel
1st
Poss Int To Del Cont Sub Win 1000 Ft Of Chrch
Drug9761
893.13.1e1
Fel
Life
Armed Possession With Intent To Deliver A Cont
Drug9762
893.13.1e2
Fel
1st
Armed Possession With Intent To Deliver A Cont
Drug9767
893.135.1h
Fel
1st
Traf Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid  Ghb   1kil To
Drug9781
893.1351.J12b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phenethylamines 200 To 400 Gram
Drug9783
893.1351.K12a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phenethylamines 10 To 200 Grams
Drug9783
893.1351.K12a
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phenethylamines 10 To 200 Grams
Drug9784
893.1351.K12b
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phenethylamines 200 To 400 Gram
Drug9785
893.1351.K12c
Fel
1st
Trafficking In Phenethylamines Over 400 Grams
Drug9786
893.1351.K12c
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic Phenethylamines
Drug9787
893.1351.K12a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Phenethylamines  10 T
Drug9787
893.1351.K12a
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Phenethylamines  10 T
Drug9788
893.1351.K12b
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Phenethylamines 200 -
Drug9788
893.1351.K12b
Fel
1st
Conspiracy To Traffic In Phenethylamines 200 -
Fel
3rd
Drug9805
893.13.8a1
Fel
3rd
Assist In Obtaining Controlled Substance By Fr
Drug9841
893.13.7a7
Misd
1st
Possession Of Blank Prescription
Drug9850
831.30.1
Misd
2nd
Fraud In Obtaining Med Drugs  Forged Pres
Drug9851
831.30.1
Misd
1st
Fraud Obtaining Medicinal Drugs  Forged Prescr
Drug9860
831.30.2
Misd
2nd
Fraud In Obtain Medicinal Drugs   Cause To Be
Drug9861
831.30.2
Misd
1st
Fraud Obtaining Medicinal Drugs Cause Forged
Drug9870
831.30.3
Misd
2nd
Fraud In Obtaining Medicinal Drugs    Uttering
Drug9871
831.30.3
Misd
1st
Fraud In Obtaining Medicinal Drugs  Uttering
Drug9873
499.0051.14d
Fel
2nd
Causing Drug To Be Counterfeit
Drug9874
499.0051.14d
Fel
2nd
Sale Of Counterfeit Drug
Drug9876
499.03.1
Misd
2nd
Possession Of Drug Without Prescription
Drug9877
499.03.1
Fel
3rd
Possession W/Intent To Sell A Drug W/O Prescri
Drug9879
465.015.2c
Fel
3rd
Dispensing Prescription Drugs Without A Prescr
Drug9880
465.015.2b
Fel
3rd
Dispensing Medicinal Drugs Wtihout Pharmacist
Drug9883
831.31.1a
Fel
3rd
Delivery Of A Counterfeit Controlled Substance
Drug9884
893.149.1b
Fel
2nd
Possession Or Distribution Of Listed Chemical
Drug9885
893.149.1a
Fel
2nd
Possession Of Listed Chemical
Drug9886
831.31.1a
Fel
3rd
Poss Of Counterfeit Contr Sub With Int To Deli
Fel
3rd
Drug9893
831.311.
Fel
3rd
Fraudulant Use Of Counterfeit-Resistant Prescr
Drug9895
893.13.7a10
Fel
3rd
False Label On Controlled Substance
Drug9995
823.10.1
Fel
3rd
Keeping Public Nuisance Structure For Drug Act
Drug9996
893.13.7a5
Misd
1st
Maintaining Structure/Place For Drug Use