KENNETH R. JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed conviction for unlawful sale of marijuana under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a), holding that Patterson v. State does not require consideration to be alleged in the information when the facts establish a sale occurred.
A conviction for unlawful sale of marijuana is valid even if the information does not explicitly allege consideration, provided the facts establish a sale took place.
[1] An information charging unlawful sale of a controlled substance need not explicitly allege consideration where the facts establish that a sale occurred, as consideration…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged by information with unlawfully selling marijuana under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) and was convicted of a felony.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The information charged that the defendant did “unlawfully sell” a controlled substance to-wit marijuana under Section 893.-13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). Pursuant thereto the defendant was convicted of a felony. We affirm.
The appeal centers round the Supreme Court case of Patterson v. State, 313 So. 2d 712 (Fla.1975). In Patterson the defendant “was charged by information with possession . . . and with selling marijuana.” In construing this information the Supreme Court appeared to hold that the allegation of selling is insufficient unless it also alleges that the sale was for consideration. We agree that that is what it looks like the Supreme Court said at first blush and that being so, we would further agree with the Second District’s expression of wonder when it said “yet, how can it ever be that a sale could occur in the absence of consideration” State v. Stewart, 358 So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). However, it is our conclusion that a close examination of Patterson reveals that there was a factual stipulation “. . . that there was no consideration given for the marijuana.” Based on that, we agree that the Supreme Court was correct in its conclusion. Likewise we conclude that we are not trespassing upon the Supreme Court’s prerogative to change the law if we affirm this conviction.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, J. and WETHERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Stewart, 374 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1979)…ida Statutes (1971), the defendant could only be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The language used in Patterson was broader than necessary in light of the factual circumstance presented. In a recent decision, the Fourth District in Jackson v. State, 365 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), considered the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted of a felony based upon an information charging that he did “unlawfully sell” marijuana. In affirming the conviction in that case, Judge Letts, writing for the district…
-
Jackson v. State, 377 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1979)…ALDERMAN, Judge. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Jackson v. State, 365 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), which purportedly conflicts with Patterson v. State, 313 So. 2d 712 (Fla.1975), and State v. Stewart, 358 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Since the filing of this petition for writ of certiorari, we have rendered a decision in…
Authorities Cited
- Patterson v. State, 313 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Stewart, 358 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)