RICHARD DUKES, 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.
Richard Dukes appealed his convictions for both sale and possession of cocaine based on the same rock cocaine, arguing double jeopardy violations, and challenged a probation revocation order that included charges to which he had not pleaded guilty. The court reversed and remanded, finding both the dual convictions and the probation revocation order improper.
Conviction of both possession and sale of the same piece of cocaine violates the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. A probation revocation order must be limited to violations to which the defendant pleaded guilty or for which evidence was presented, and must accurately reflect the trial court's findings.
[1] Possession of a controlled substance is an inherent element of the offense of delivery of that same controlled substance.
[2] Convicting a defendant of both possession and delivery of the same controlled substance violates the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitution…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“appellant contends that conviction of both possession and sale of the same piece of cocaine violates the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. We agree.”
Establishes the core holding that dual convictions for sale and possession of the same drug violate double jeopardy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of both sale and possession of cocaine under Florida Statute section 893.13(1)(a)(1) based on the same piece of rock cocaine. …
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 Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting appellant of both sale and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1986), because both charges stemmed from possessing and selling the same piece of rock cocaine. Appellant contends that conviction of both possession and sale of the same piece of cocaine violates the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. We agree. See Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We reverse and remand with instructions to vacate one or the other of appellant’s convictions and to recalculate the sentence for the remaining count without the improper count being scored.
Second, appellant contends that the trial court improperly included charges to which appellant had not pled guilty in the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation. In the written order revoking probation, the trial court stated that appellant violated his probation as stated in the affidavit. The affidavit charged that appellant violated his probation because he (1) left Lee County without the consent of the probation officer; (2) possessed cocaine with intent to sell on January 2, 1987; and (3) sold and possessed cocaine on December 18, 1986. Appellant pled guilty only to the charge that he sold and possessed cocaine on December 18, 1986. He did not plead guilty to the other charges and no evidence was presented on them. The trial court erred in including the other charges in the written order of revocation. The order of revocation must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s findings. Revear v. State, 497 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Artis Rynard Lewis v. State, 545 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ocaine since both convictions arise from a single act. Just as sale of cocaine includes all elements necessary to prove possession of cocaine, the same is true for purchase of cocaine. See Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987); Dukes v. State, 528 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We note that these offenses occurred prior to the amendment of section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, in 1988. On remand, the judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine sh…
-
Arnold v. State, 578 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…th. Cf. State v. Burton, 555 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1989) (cannot have separate convictions for delivery and simple possession); State v. Hatten, 560 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1990) (cannot have separate convictions for sale and simple possession); Dukes v. State, 528 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (same). We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate one of the two convictions and its corresponding sentence. We affirm as to appellant’s first issue. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. DOWNEY and LE…
-
State v. McCLOUD, 559 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…e quantum of cocaine. McCloud agreed to plead guilty to the sale charges but contended that conviction and sentence for the possession charges would constitute a double jeopardy violation. Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987); Dukes v. State, 528 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Over objection the trial court dismissed the possession charges. We' affirm the dismissal with respect to Circuit Court Case No. 89-01185, wherein the offenses were alleged to have taken place June 8, 1988. Gordon v. State, 528…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Revear v. State, 497 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)