DANIEL P. EHMKE, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the sentence based on the use of a firearm, but affirmed the conviction and sentence in all other respects.
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis. The defendant argued the informant was paid under a contingent fee arrangement, similar …
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 Conspiracy To Traffic In Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to traffic in cannabis.
Defendant argues that the facts of this case are similar to the facts in the case of State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985), contending that the informant was to be paid under a contingent fee arrangement as in Glosson. To the contrary, the record reflects that the informant was to be paid an amount based on the type of transaction and the risk involved, not a percentage of any funds realized from the drug transaction as in Glosson. Moreover, in Glosson, the testimony of the informant was essential for a conviction of the defendant, whereas in this case, the jury could have convicted the defendant without consideration of the testimony of the informant.
We find the facts of this case more consistent with those in Yolman v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and affirm on the authority of Yolman.
The trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The basis of the court’s retention of jurisdiction was the use of a firearm by the defendant. The facts of this case do not justify the determination by the trial judge that the defendant used a firearm in the commission of this felony. See Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Thus, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over defendant’s sentence.
We find no merit to the other points raised by appellant.
Accordingly, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of the defendant’s sentence but affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. State, 517 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…rmed. Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); State v, Wheeler, 468 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1985); Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); Ehmke v. State, 478 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986); United States v. Grassi, 616 F. 2d 1295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 363, 66 L.Ed.2d 220 (1980); United States v. Bower, 575 F. 2d 499 (5th Cir.), cert. [*53] denied,…
-
Callahan v. State, 530 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…reates such a prejudicial situation that appellants would be unable to receive a fair and unbiased trial to the extent that their due process rights are violated. We disagree and find that the facts of this case are more similar to Ehmke v. State, 478 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986) and Yolman v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985) than they are to Glosson. It is not evident in this case that the testimony of the conf…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)
- Howard v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Junior Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)