STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MANDELL C. MCGEE, 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 State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a cannabis possession with intent to sell charge for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the defendant's possession of an unspecified amount constituted a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The court reverses, holding that possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis is a third degree felony, and certifies a conflict question to the Florida Supreme Court.
Possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis is a third degree felony under Florida Statutes section 893.13(1)(a)2, regardless of the quantity involved. The statutory language 'possession with intent to sell' is distinct from 'mere possession' and does not require a threshold amount to be charged as a felony.
[1] Possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis constitutes a third-degree felony under Florida law.
[2] The legislature, not the courts, defines criminal conduct and assigns penalties based on culpability.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This court cannot simply ignore the words 'intent to sell.' To do so would unjustifiably abridge the statutes and usurp the power of the legislature to define what is or is not a crime.”
Establishes the principle that courts must respect statutory language and cannot ignore or rewrite key criminal elements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant McGee was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to sell, but the information did not specify the amount possessed. The trial court…
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 Controlled Substance Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
The state appeals a circuit court’s decision to dismiss an information for lack of jurisdiction because it charged defendant with possession of cannabis with intent to sell but did not specify an amount of twenty grams or more, thus was only a misdemeanor. We reverse.
The trial court relied on Franklin v. State, 346 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which blended together sections 893.-13(1)(a), 893.03(1)(c), and 893.13(l)(f) of the Florida Statutes (1975), to determine that one who possesses cannabis with intent to sell less than the threshold amount [in 1977, five grams, now twenty grams] is guilty only of a first degree misdemeanor, not a felony. The Franklin court did not discuss the meaning of the words “intent to sell.”
The Franklin court apparently equated mere “possession” with “possession with intent to sell.” This court cannot simply ignore the words “intent to sell.” To do so would unjustifiably abridge the statutes and usurp the power of the legislature to define what is or is not a crime.
The mere possession of a “controlled substance” is a crime. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). Cannabis is a controlled substance. § 893.03(l)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (1985). One who possesses 20 grams or more is guilty of a third degree felony. § 893.-13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Possession of “not more than 20 grams” is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1985). On the other hand, possession with intent to sell cannabis is a third degree felony. §§ 893.13(l)(a); 893.03(l)(c)3, and 893.13(l)(a)2 Fla.Stat. (1985).
The mere possession of cannabis is different from possession with intent to sell. One who engages in criminal conduct, even with himself as a victim, can be censured by society. The legislature has the responsibility to define criminal conduct and the power to select a punishment to fit one’s degree of culpability. Thus, the legislature has separated the levels of criminality based on the amount of the drug one possesses.
Possession with intent to sell a controlled substance is, by its own terms, a different matter. One who attempts to propagate evil by inducing others to indulge in it is logically guilty of a higher measure of blameworthiness. One who possesses cannabis with intent to sell it is more culpable than one who merely possesses it. The legislature has determined that it does not matter what amount one possesses with intent to sell in order for the act to be deemed a felony. Clearly, this is the province of the legislature to decide and should not be trifled with by the courts of this state.
We hold that it is a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes to “possess with intent to sell” any amount of cannabis, and such a violation is a third degree felony. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the information and remand this case with directions for the trial court to reinstate the information.
Because of our conflict with our sister court we certify this question to the Supreme Court:
WHETHER THE POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL ANY AMOUNT OF CANNABIS IS A THIRD DEGREE FELONY UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE?
Reversed and remanded with directions.
SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.P. v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…. denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1984). We agree with the trial court that the remaining .charge of possession with intent to sell is a third degree felony rather than a first degree misdemeanor. In reaching this conclusion, we follow State v. McGee, 494 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) and State v. McDaniel, (Fla. 2d DCA Case no. 86-1355, opinion filed, February 25, 1987) [12 FLW 658], rather than the directly contrary decision of Franklin v. State, 346 So. 2d 137 (Fla. [*617] 1st DCA 1977), with which we acknow…
-
State v. McDANIEL, 508 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…e possessed, it did not charge a felony. The state contends, however, that the possession of cannabis with intent to sell charge does allege a felony. We agree. Since the trial court entered its order in this case, this court held in State v. McGee, 494 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), that it is a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2 to possess with intent to sell any amount of cannabis and that such a violation is a third degree felony. The circuit court, therefore, has jurisdiction to consider the possession w…
-
Mandell C. McGEE v. State, 509 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review State v. McGee, 494 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), which held that possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis violates section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1985), and is a third-degree felony. The district court acknowledged conflict with Franklin v. State, 346 So.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 346 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)