Id. In the instant case, the State met its burden with respect to the knowledge element of the offense. The officers testified that appellant was in the driver’s seat of the truck and the marijuana was in a compartment in the dash in plain view. The fact that the drugs were openly within appellant’s line of sight is evidence from which appellant’s knowledge of the presence of the marijuana may be inferred. See Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983) (finding fact that drugs were in open view provided evidence ,of knowledge of the same). This, then, brings us to the matter of dominion and control. Knowledge of the presence of the drugs and the ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs are not the same thing. See Jean v. State, 638 So.2d 995, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). In the case law, the concepts of “dominion”
holding it is critical to the trial courts power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it including requests for extensions of time recognizing that knowledge and dominion and control are separate elements and stating that it is conceivable that an accused might be well aware of the presence of the substance but have no ability to maintain control over it holding that an instruction requiring the jury to find that the defendant had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine was adequate to convey the principle that mere presence or proximity is not sufficient holding that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control 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