Shedd v. State
137 So. 3d 456
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Daniel Shedd was convicted at trial of possession of marijuana, alprazolam, and hydrocodone.
- The alprazolam and hydrocodone were found in a vehicle driven by Shedd with his mother’s prescriptions; the pills were in his mother’s name.
- Shedd admitted the marijuana was his, but his mother testified the pills belonged to her and were legitimately prescribed to her.
- The defense argued Shedd possessed his mother’s pills for safekeeping; the state did not dispute the mother’s valid prescriptions.
- The trial court refused to give any prescription-defense instruction to the jury.
- On appeal, Shedd contends the lack of a prescription-defense instruction was fundamental error and that counsel was ineffective for not requesting it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to instruct on prescription defense is fundamental error | Ramirez controls; omission deprives fair trial | Prescription defense applies to possession of prescribed meds by another | Fundamental error; prescription defense instruction required |
| Whether failure to request prescription instruction shows ineffective assistance of counsel on the record | Counsel failed to raise necessary defense | Counsel reasonably relied on evidence showing ownership by mother | Ineffective assistance apparent on the face of the record |
| Effect of ruling on Shedd’s marijuana conviction | Conviction unrelated to prescription issue still stands | No impact on marijuana possession verdict | Affirmed as to marijuana; reversed and remanded for new trial on alprazolam and hydrocodone |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 125 So.3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (fundamental-error when no prescription defense instruction)
- McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (prescription defense affirmative defense to possession)
- State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (prescription defense may be asserted by other authorized individuals)
- Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1988) (standard for evaluating flawed jury instructions)
- Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2000) (ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal require face-of-record showing)