Case Name: Eduardo MUNOZ and Jose Luis Hernandez, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-06-03
Citations: 488 So. 2d 926
Docket Number: No. 84-1595
Parties: Eduardo MUNOZ and Jose Luis Hernandez, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 488
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
Eduardo MUNOZ and Jose Luis Hernandez, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 84-1595.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 3, 1986.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Alan D. Sackrin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge their convictions and sentences based on trafficking in me-thaqualone and possession of cannabis. Finding that the trial court did not err in denying appellants' motions for judgments of acquittal, Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974); Busch v. State, 466 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Greger v. State, 458 So.2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); that substantial competent evidence exists to support the jury verdict, Toole v. State, 472 So.2d 1174 (Fla.1985); Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); and that the prosecution established an adequate chain of custody, Peek v. State, 395 So.2d 492 (Fla.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 964, 101 S.Ct. 2036, 68 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); Helton v. State, 424 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); review denied, 433 So.2d 519 (Fla.1983); Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 179 (Fla.1970), we affirm. Appellants' remaining point lacks merit.
Affirmed.