Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: January 26, 2022
On consideration, the Court concludes that all of the conduct prohibited by Fla. Stat. § 893.149( 1) necessarily entails the manufacture of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine can be made largely from chemical ingredients purchased over the counter. Thus, the possession or distribution of those chemicals is “an essential first step” in the methamphetamine manufacturing process. See United States v. Eason, 919 F.3d 385, 391 (6th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Hyde, 977 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1992) (observing that the criminalization of possessing certain precursor chemicals is part of the “Federal effort to control the distribution of” controlled substances by “penaliz[ing] acts earlier in the process of manufacturing” those substances). Florida criminalizes that first step and, to ensure the offense captures only conduct that involves manufacturing methamphetamine, Fla. Stat. § 893.149( 1) requires proof that the defendant possessed or distributed the chemical ingredient intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to produce methamphetamine. In other words, both the minimal conduct required (possession of a precursor…
In addition, under section 893.149(1)(a), it is unlawful "to knowingly or intentionally" possess a chemical listed in section 893.033 with the intent to unlawfully manufacture a controlled substance. The plain statutory language thus rebuts Appellant's argument for strict liability.
Adjudicated guilty of five offenses related to producing and trafficking in methamphetamine, Tom Scarborough argues two points on direct appeal. As to the contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, we affirm without further discussion. But we agree the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction under section 893.149, Florida Statutes (2010), for unlawful possession of acetone for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. Accordingly, we reverse that one conviction and the sentence imposed for it.
Thomas Smith appeals his convictions for possession of more than 14 grams of methamphetamine under section 893.135(f) 1.a., Florida Statutes (2012), and possession of precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine under section 893.149(1), Florida Statutes (2012). He claims the trial court erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the state's evidence was insufficient to prove that he was in constructive possession of the contraband. We have reviewed the trial court's ruling de novo, and reverse. See McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 329 (Fla.2007).
[Lane] did knowingly or intentionally possess a listed chemical, to-wit: Pseudoephedrine and/or Anhydrous Ammonia, with the intent to unlawfully manufacture a controlled substance, or did knowingly possess or distribute said listed chemical knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that said listed chemical will be used to unlawfully manufacture a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.149.
To obtain convictions for unlawful possession of a listed chemical and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, the State had the burden to prove, inter alia, that Smith actually or constructively possessed the pseudoephedrine and ammunition at the time of his arrest. See §§ 790.23(1), 893.149(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) ; see also Sundin v. State, 27 So.3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“All possession crimes may be either actual or constructive.”).
To obtain convictions for unlawful possession of a listed chemical and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, the State had the burden to prove, inter alia, that Smith actually or constructively possessed the pseudoephedrine and ammunitionat the time of his arrest. See§§ 790.23(1), 893.149(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); see also Sundin v. State, 27 So.3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“All possession crimes may be either actual or constructive.”).
On February 9, 2009, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 893.13(1)(a)(1) and 893.03(2)(c)(4), possession of a listed chemical, in violation of Florida Statute § 893.149, and grand theft (App. A at 6, 17-20). He was sentenced to three years of drug offender probation. Id. at 23.
David A. Ingram (Appellant) was charged with one count of possessing or aiding and abetting the possession of listed precursor chemicals (pseudoephedrine and Red Devil lye) with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a second-degree felony in violation of sections 893.149 777.011, Florida Statutes (2004); and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of section 893.147(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004). Victor Brooks Wilson, a passenger in Appellant's vehicle, was named in the same information and was charged with the same offenses as Appellant, plus one count of actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a third-degree felony in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The alleged offenses occurred on April 21, 2004. After the trial court denied Appellant's legally dispositive motion to suppress evidence, he entered a plea of no contest to both counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to three years' probation, conditioned upon his serving the first nine months in the county jail. Appellant…
In July 2006, the State charged Clayton Harris with possession of the listed chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to use it to manufacture methamphetamine, more commonly known as meth, in violation of section 893.149(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006). Harris subsequently moved to suppress seized evidence, including the pseudoephedrine, arguing that it was found pursuant to an illegal search of his truck.