PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. We reverse.
The statement of the facts of the case as set forth by appellant in his brief and agreed to by the state fails to establish that appellant was in actual or constructive possession of the marijuana. Daudt v. State,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
