5D10-3607 Jon Celeste v. State

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2012 » 5D10-3607 Jon Celeste v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D10-3607

Case Date: 02/13/2012

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012

JON MICHAEL CELESTE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 17, 2012 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Timothy Shea, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. Case No. 5D10-3607

ORFINGER, C.J. Jon M. Celeste appeals his conviction of trafficking in oxycodone. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. We agree and reverse. Mr. Celeste was charged with trafficking in oxycodone, possession of a controlled substance without a prescription and possession with intent to sell. After the State

dismissed both possession charges, the case proceeded to trial solely on the trafficking charge. The State introduced evidence that Sheriff's Deputy Steven Jenny observed Mr. Celeste riding his bicycle at night without lights in violation of Florida law. Deputy Jenny radioed Deputy Brian Figueroa and asked him to stop Mr. Celeste. Deputy

Figueroa found Mr. Celeste at a gas station with his bicycle, speaking to someone pumping gas. As Deputy Figueroa approached, Mr. Celeste turned and appeared to put something in his front pocket. When Deputy Figueroa asked Mr. Celeste what he had put in his pocket, he responded that it was his pills and produced a pill container containing twenty-eight oxycodone tablets. The label on the container was illegible. Mr. Celeste claimed to have a prescription for the oxycodone, but was unable to produce it at the time. An ensuing search revealed that Mr. Celeste had $260 in twenty dollar bills, an additional twenty oxycodone pills separately packaged in a plastic wrapper and a list of names and numbers in his back pocket.1 Mr. Celeste testified that as a result of a serious job-related injury, he had been prescribed painkillers, the most recent prescription authorizing 180 oxycodone pills per month. He introduced evidence from a pharmacy showing that he had a valid prescription for oxycodone at the time of his arrest. The trial court denied Mr. Celeste's motions for a judgment of acquittal, finding that in view of the separately packaged pills, the money and the list of names, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. trafficking and this appeal followed. The jury found Mr. Celeste guilty of

The exhibit is not a part of the record before this Court. However, the parties seem to agree that it is "a piece of paper listing some names and numbers."

1

2

A trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). A judgment of acquittal should be granted if the State does not prove each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Baugh v. State, 961 So. 2d 198, 203-04 (Fla. 2007);

McHolder v. State, 917 So. 2d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065, 1069 (Fla. 1999). In addition, when the State relies on circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury could exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989). Once the State meets its threshold burden, it then becomes the jury's duty to determine whether the evidence excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury's verdict, the reviewing court will not reverse. Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128, 1146 (Fla. 2006). Mr. Celeste claims that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict that he was guilty of trafficking in oxycodone. The trafficking statute provides, in relevant part: (c) 1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of . . . oxycodone . . . commits a felony of the first degree . . . .

3

Download 5D10-3607 Jon Celeste v. State.pdf