JOEL G. VELEZ, 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 defendant's convictions for possession and delivery of marijuana constituted a double jeopardy violation. The court also found no merit in the defendant's contention regarding a lesser included offense instruction for trafficking in cocaine.
The defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, delivery of marijuana, and possession of marijuana. He appealed these convictions, arguing doub…
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 Delivery Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, delivery of marijuana, and possession of marijuana. He contends that his convictions for possession and delivery of marijuana constituted a double jeopardy violation. We agree. See Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This contention was properly raised on appeal notwithstanding that it was not raised below. See Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (en banc).
He also contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on possession as a lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine. However, the record does not support that contention. See Munroe v. State, 514 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. den., 519 So. 2d 987 (1988); Bell v. State, 208 So. 2d 474, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Boyd v. State, 162 So. 2d 271, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
We find no merit in defendant’s last contention.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Upon remand the trial court shall vacate one of defendant’s convictions for delivery and possession of marijuana.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marinelli v. State, 706 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…der. The trial court may also readdress restitution and costs. Reversed and remanded. DANAHY and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . A double jeopardy issue may be raised on appeal notwithstanding that it was not raised in the trial court. See Velez v. State, 528 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Park v. State, 528 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). . We note that Marinelli had been charged with two counts of aggravated stalking, but the jury acquitted him of those charges, opting instead for misdemeanor stalking.…
-
Johnson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…nca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We reject the state’s argument that the defendant cannot raise this claim on appeal because he failed to raise it in the trial court. Park v. State, 528 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Velez v. State, 528 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine, but we vacate his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. We remand for resentencing. HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Munroe v. State, 514 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Boyd v. State, 162 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bell v. State, 208 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)