Id. Furthermore, because any possession on the part of Edison would have been nonexclusive, given that the State presented no evidence tying any of the four suspects directly to the cocaine, the control element cannot be inferred but must be established by independent proof. See Green v. State, 667 So.2d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Our review of the record compels us to conclude that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Edison had control over the cocaine. As a preliminary consideration, because there was no evidence that Edison was the owner or an occupant of the residence, the court could not infer that he had the ability to control the cocaine simply because it was in plain view in the common areas. Compare Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (<HOLDING>), with Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252
holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession holding that where drugs are found in the presence and plain view of the owner or resident occupant of a home dominion and control maybe inferred holding that circumstantial evidence of guilt emanating from the defendants proximity to illicit drugs in plain view was equally susceptible to the reasonable hypotheses that the defendant was a mere visitor and that the drugs were in the possession and control of the owner or other occupant of the premises