CAROL JOSEPH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed the revocation of probation and adjudication of guilt for sale of contraband, but modified the judgment to strike the adjudication for possession of the same contraband.
Appellant was adjudicated guilty of sale and possession of contraband after a jury verdict and probation violation hearing. He appealed the probation …
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 Possession Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation, as well as an adjudication of guilt for sale and possession of contraband, pursuant to an adverse jury verdict. The appellant urges error in the extension of the original probation, in entering a protective order which restricted his pretrial preparation on discovery, in denying a motion for mistrial when a state witness in a nonresponsive answer may have commented on the defendant’s failure to testify, and lastly that the trial court erred in entering separate judgments of sale and possession of the same contraband.
As to the first point, it was by agreement after notice and a probation violation hearing, that the original probation term was extended. In consideration thereof the probation violation matter was dismissed. We find no error in this point. Compare Gurganus v. State, 391 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). On the second point, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge issuing the protective order. See State v. Domenech, 533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Young v. Metropolitan Dade County, 201 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We likewise find no error in denying the mistrial, examining the evidence in light of the Supreme Court pronouncement in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). It is apparent that the evidence was conclusive as to the defendant’s guilt, and therefore if there were any error in the first instance it would be merely harmless.
The state has conceded error in the sepa-, rate judgments and convictions together with sentences for the sale and possession of contraband. Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore strike the adjudication of guilt and sentence as it relates to the possession charge. In all other respects the convictions and sentences under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 555 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…onvictions for sale or delivery of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine. This being so, the cocaine possession convictions are barred by the constitutional principles of double jeopardy. State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1989); Joseph v. State, 541 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Blanca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). There is no merit, however, to the defendant’s remaining point that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the state to introduce certain hearsay testimony at…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Helene Young v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 201 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Gurganus v. State, 391 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- State v. Domenech, 533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)