State v. Latona
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19203
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- State charged Latona with one count of oxycodone possession and two counts of morphine possession after three prescription bottles with H.H.'s name were found in Latona's purse following a traffic stop.
- Latona claimed she was H.H.'s home health care nurse and that, via a durable power of attorney, she could hold H.H.'s property, including medications, on his behalf.
- Latona attached the Durable Power of Attorney for Management of the Assets of H.H. to her dismissal motion; the power purported to authorize Latona to hold all of H.H.'s property.
- State filed a traverse admitting prescriptions were valid and Latona was H.H.’s attorney-in-fact, but argued disputes remained about whether Latona exceeded her authority.
- Statutory prescription defense (rule 3.190(c)(4)) was invoked; the defense rests on lawful possession under a valid prescription and authority to hold medications.
- Trial court dismissed, holding no material factual dispute; Latona appealed; the majority affirmed, while Palmer, J. dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the prescription defense apply to Latona’s possession of meds? | Latona (Latona) contends she lawfully possessed meds under H.H.'s prescription. | State concedes prescriptions were valid but disputes Latona’s authority to hold medications for H.H. | Prescription defense applicable; no factual dispute about authority as to possession |
| Did Latona exceed the scope of her power under the power of attorney? | Latona was authorized to hold all of H.H.'s property, including medications, under the POA. | State contends there is a factual issue about revocation or scope not reflected by notice. | Latona authorized to hold medications; no material factual issue as to scope |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact requiring denial of the dismissal? | State argues factual dispute exists regarding authority and revocation. | Latona asserts no factual dispute due to undisputed POA provisions and absence of revocation notice. | No material factual dispute; trial court affirmed dismissal |
| Does revocation of a power of attorney become effective only upon actual notice to the agent? | State did not address actual notice; latona’s authority treated as ongoing. | Latona’s authority remains unless H.H. notified of revocation; no notice received. | Revocation requires actual notice; not shown in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida-Georgia Chem. Co. v. Nat'l Labs., Inc., 153 So.2d 752 (Fla.1st DCA 1963) (revocation of agency becomes operative as to agent from actual notice)
- O'Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (prescription defense and possession defense recognized)
- McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (prescription defense extends to hold-by-authorized individuals)
- Dingle v. Prikhdina, 59 So.3d 326 (Fla.5th DCA 2011) (powers of attorney are strictly construed; scope tied to principal's intent)
- Stalley v. Transitional Hosp. Corp. of Tampa, Inc., 44 So.3d 627 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (agent's authority limited to what principal authorizes)
- Kotsch v. Kotsch, 608 So.2d 879 (Fla.2d DCA 1992) (claims powers of attorney require close examination to ascertain intent)
- DeBueno v. Castro, 543 So.2d 393 (Fla.4th DCA 1989) (strict construction of powers of attorney)