Is $200 of Crack Worth 10 Years in Prison?

By: John Guidry

What I’m about to say may come as a shock to folks unfamiliar with the workings of our government: Our government officials exaggerate.

Yes, I’m as tired of such clichés as you are. But behind every cliché, there is a nugget of truth lurking.

Today, our Circle of Distrust involves law enforcement and their habit of exaggerating arrest reports. Why should we care if cops lie a little? Because an exaggerated arrest report leads to exaggerated charges, and in the end, harsher sentences for no good reason.

The “Intent to Sell” Trap Our real-life example for today involves a drug charge—the low-hanging fruit of exaggerated claims. Often, a simple “possession” charge is transformed into a serious “dealing” charge via the claim that a citizen had “an intent to sell or deliver.”

Is the State trying to turn your personal stash into a trafficking charge? Don’t let them exaggerate your sentence. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Legal Breakdown: Thomas v. State

Here is the play-by-play on our real-life case, Thomas v. State, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

• The Stop: Mr. Thomas was stopped for failing to use his turn signal.
• The Seizure: Police found two containers of crack cocaine, totaling 3.5 grams (about $200 worth). He also had $1,086 cash in twenty-dollar bills.
• The Exaggeration: Instead of charging him with simple possession, the officer and prosecutor charged him with Possession with Intent to Sell or Deliver.
• The Sentence: Thomas was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Wait, $200 in drugs gets you 10 years? How does that happen? In order to prove “intent to sell,” there must be evidence of criminal conduct consistent with dealing. But the police didn’t see Thomas dealing. They didn’t see him approach cars or exchange money.

So, they called in an “Expert.”

The prosecutor called a Sheriff’s deputy as an expert witness. This deputy testified that, based on his “training and experience,” the amount of drugs and cash meant Thomas must have intended to sell.

The Appeal: A Victory for Logic

Thankfully, the appellate court overturned the conviction. They reminded the State that explaining something isn’t the same thing as proving it.

The court held that:

1. Small Amount: 3.5 grams is a relatively small amount, consistent with personal use.
2. No Packaging: The drugs were not individually packaged for sale.
3. No Behavior: The officer observed no conduct consistent with drug sales.

The “Kool-Aid” Drinkers It is amazing this case went as far as it did. The appellate court essentially asked, “Can you guys read?” and pointed to established law that should have prevented this conviction in the first place:

• Jackson v. State (2002): 6 baggies + 5 grams + $400 does not equal Intent to Sell.
• Valentin v. State (2008): 17 bags + 8.3 grams does not equal Intent to Sell.
• Harris v. State: 50 rocks (not packaged) does not equal Intent to Sell.

John’s Takeaways

This case is a perfect example of why you cannot simply accept the charge the police write on your arrest affidavit.

• The Taxpayer Waste: It costs roughly $31,286 per year to house an inmate. Several “intelligent” folks conspired to spend $312,860 of your tax dollars to imprison a man for 10 years over $200 worth of crack.
• “Intent” is often Fiction: Police assume that if you have cash and drugs, you are a dealer. But rich people carry cash. Addicts carry stashes. That doesn’t make them dealers.
• Expert Testimony isn’t Proof: Just because a cop says “in my experience, dealers do X,” that doesn’t mean you did X. We can fight this “profile” evidence.

Fight the Exaggeration

If you have been charged with “Intent to Sell” based on a small amount of drugs and some cash in your pocket, the State is likely overreaching. We need to hold them to the strict standards of the law.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s force them to prove it.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.