TUFENKJIAN v. STATE (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Amanda TUFENKJIAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D23-1897

Decided: December 04, 2024

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Haccord J. Curry, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 199-200 (Fla. 2020) (holding that the standard to be applied in all cases when analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence is “whether the State presented competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict”); State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“[K]nowledge of the presence of the contraband and its illicit nature could be inferred or presumed because [defendant] was in exclusive possession of the automobile when it was stopped.”); Grady v. State, 753 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (providing that factors to be considered “in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia” include “the proximity of the object to controlled substances” and “expert testimony concerning its use”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network