JOE NATHAN CAMPBELL, 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.
Joe Nathan Campbell was convicted of delivery, possession, and trafficking in heroin and challenged the constitutionality of multiple convictions and sentences for these offenses. The court reversed, holding that trafficking convictions necessarily encompass sale and possession charges, making separate convictions for all three offenses violative of double jeopardy principles.
The court held that a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of sale and possession in addition to trafficking because trafficking necessarily encompasses both sale and possession. Therefore, the separate convictions violate double jeopardy principles and must be set aside.
[1] A conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs encompasses the sale or possession of illegal drugs, and separate convictions for sale and possession arising from the same…
[2] When a single criminal act violates multiple statutes, and one statute is a lesser included offense of another, only the sentence for the greater offense may be imposed.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of sale and possession, in addition to trafficking, because trafficking necessarily encompasses either or both of the other evils”
Establishes the core holding that trafficking convictions inherently include sale and possession, making separate convictions for those offenses constitutionally impermissible under double jeopardy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell was observed by police detectives in a 1984 incident in south St. Petersburg taking money from a confidential informant and handing over a pa…
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 Trafficking In Illegal Drugs cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Joe Nathan Campbell appeals his convictions and sentences for delivery, possession, and trafficking in heroin. He argues that the imposition of separate convictions and sentences violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We agree and reverse.
Campbell was charged with delivery of heroin, possession of heroin, and trafficking in heroin in violation of sections 893.-13(l)(a)(l), 893.13(l)(e) and 893.135(l)(c)(l), Florida Statutes (1985). The jury found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years on the delivery and trafficking charges, and five years on the possession charge. The judgment included imposition of court costs pursuant to sections 960.20 and 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1985). The court also imposed the mandatory three-year minimum prison term and $50,000 fine for trafficking as required by section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1983).
The case stems from a 1984 incident in south St. Petersburg. A police detective observed Campbell take money from a confidential informant and give the informant a packet of what later proved to be heroin, which Campbell pulled from a brown paper bag. Another detective waiting nearby was alerted and moved in to arrest Campbell, confiscating the paper bag which contained sufficient amounts of heroin to sustain the trafficking charge.
The Florida Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of multiple convictions and sentences for trafficking, sale and possession of illegal drugs. In Cara-wan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), the court specifically receded from its decision in Rotenberry v. State, 468 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1985) on which the state relies. As here, the defendant in Rotenberry was convicted of trafficking, sale and possession of drugs arising from a single transaction. While acknowledging that possession of contraband is undoubtedly different than sale of contraband, the court held in Carawan that a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of sale and possession, in addition to trafficking, because trafficking necessarily encompasses either or both of the other evils. Therefore, in accord with Ca-rawan, we set aside the convictions and sentences and remand for resentencing.
The written judgments and sentences reflect that court costs in the amount of $20.00 and $2.50 were assessed against Campbell. The record does not reflect that the judge imposed these costs at sentencing, nor that Campbell was given notice as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). See also Thompson v. State, 508 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Burrow v. State, 487 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We therefore strike the costs without prejudice to the state in accordance with Jenkins.
We have considered Campbell’s remaining argument that imposition of the $50,000 mandatory fine pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)l is unconstitutional, and find it to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Hoover, 520 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…crime area insufficient ground to justify his detention). A police officer does not possess a founded suspicion that criminal activity is occurring when he merely observes a pedestrian leaning into a car in a high crime area. See State v. Delaney, 517 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Kearse v. State, 384 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Here, the state failed to show that the deputy had a sufficient basis upon which to reach a founded suspicion that criminal activity was occurring or about to occur, and thus…
-
Peabody v. State, 556 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…h crime area and talk to the occupant may have a bare suspicion of criminal activity, but he does not have a founded suspicion. State v. Hoover, 520 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Delaney, 517 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The fact that the occupant of the car extended his hand does not' raise the suspicion to a founded suspicion. See Mosley. The trial court, therefore, erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. We, accordingly, reverse…
-
Harol Castillo v. State, 536 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…river’s license, there must be deemed to have been a continued, illegal detention which was the equivalent of an illegal stop of the car which led to the discovery of the bag. See Wulff v. State, 533 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Delaney, 517 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (a passenger in an illegally stopped car, the search of which produced evidence used against the passenger in a criminal prosecution, is entitled to move to suppress the evidence on the basis of the illegal stop). To the extent de…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- Rotenberry v. State, 468 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1985)
- Burrow v. State, 487 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Thompson v. State, 508 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)