Case Name: Vincent Charles DI SANGRO, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-07-07
Citations: 422 So. 2d 14
Docket Number: No. 81-1037
Parties: Vincent Charles DI SANGRO, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-appellant.
Judges: DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 422
Pages: 14–16

Head Matter:
Vincent Charles DI SANGRO, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-appellant.
No. 81-1037.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 7, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 8,1982 and Rehearing Denied Jan. 19,1983.
Philip G. Butler, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have considered appellant's three points on appeal and find merit in only one.
Among other things, appellant was convicted of attempted possession of valium, a lesser included offense of the charge of possession of valium with intent to sell.
The evidence shows that the valium was located in two suitcases in Room 285 of the Ramada Inn, a room rented to appellant's brother, Paul DiSangro; that appellant was present on a boat during the sale of a quantity of valium and he participated in counting the money for the sale; he was also present with others at a restaurant during further planning for additional sales to the same undercover agents. While a cohort was present in an undercover agent's room, the cohort received a phone call from appellant. Also, appellant was arrested with his brother in the lobby of the Ramada Inn. Finally, one of appellant's cohorts told the agents that he, appellant, and appellant's brother had a motel room. This evidence demonstrates appellant's heavy involvement in the entire criminal episode and raises a serious suspicion that appellant was in possession of the contraband; however we doubt it can be said to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply does not demonstrate dominion and control, one of the three criteria to prove constructive possession. Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence for attempted possession of valium with intent to sell and affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.