## Facts

- Police executed a search warrant at a Cape Coral house that appeared to be occupied by Rondre Thomas, Thomas’s mother, and one other individual.
- Thomas was not found in actual possession of any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
- During the search, officers located heroin and cocaine, along with drug paraphernalia, inside one bedroom of the house.
- The contraband was not found in plain view; it was located inside a dresser drawer and inside a black case on top of the dresser.
- In the same bedroom, officers found items bearing on Thomas’s connection to the room, including:
  - A prescription pill bottle with Thomas’s name on it,
  - A court document belonging to Thomas,
  - CDs with images of Thomas,
  - Shoe boxes for the same shoe size Thomas was wearing, and
  - A photo collage depicting Thomas and a woman.
- The bedroom also contained women’s clothing and women’s shoes, suggesting the room was used by more than one person.
- At trial, Thomas’s mother testified that she, her children, nieces, and her sons’ girlfriends had access to the house and to all of the bedrooms.
- The State proceeded on a constructive-possession theory to connect Thomas to the drugs and paraphernalia found in the bedroom.
- Thomas moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence did not prove he knew of the contraband or could control it in a residence accessible to multiple people; the trial court denied the motion, and Thomas was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Thomas constructively possessed heroin, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia found in a bedroom of a residence accessible to multiple people.
2. Whether proof that Thomas’s personal items were present in the bedroom, without additional evidence showing knowledge of and dominion or control over the hidden contraband, was enough to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed Thomas’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held the trial court erred by denying Thomas’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the State’s evidence did not establish constructive possession in a non-exclusive-access setting.
- The appellate court directed the trial court to vacate the convictions and sentences.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive possession requires proof that the defendant (1) knew of the contraband’s presence and (2) had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it.
- When contraband is found in a place not under the defendant’s exclusive control, the State must present independent evidence of the defendant’s knowledge and ability to control the contraband; presence in the area or association with the location is not enough.
- Evidence linking a defendant to a room (such as mail, a prescription bottle, photographs, or other personal effects) may show the defendant used or frequented the room, but it does not, by itself, prove the defendant knew of and could control contraband hidden in containers within that room when others had access.
- On a motion for judgment of acquittal, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, but the motion must be granted where the evidence cannot support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the governing possession standard.

## Conclusion

Because the drugs and paraphernalia were found hidden in a bedroom that was not shown to be under Thomas’s exclusive control, and because the State’s proof showed at most that Thomas had personal items in the room—not independent evidence that he knew of or could control the contraband—the appellate court reversed and ordered the trial court to vacate the convictions and sentences.


Thomas v. State, 269 So. 3d 681 (2019)