MARSHALL CHAPMAN, 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 convictions for both sale and possession of the same marijuana violated double jeopardy, and the trial court erred by not providing written findings for habitual offender sentencing.
[1] A conviction for both sale and possession of a single quantity of marijuana violates the prohibition against double jeopardy.
[2] A trial court must provide written findings to support an adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm, sale and possession of marijuana, and conspiracy. The sentences for some counts exceeded…
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 Felony Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Marshall Chapman, challenges his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm, for which he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment; sale of marijuana, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; felony possession of marijuana, for which he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment; and conspiracy to sell and misdemeanor possession of marijuana, for both of which convictions he received time served. The sentences for the aggravated assault and the felony possession counts were above the statutory máximums, but the total sentence was within the guidelines. The appellant raises several points on appeal, but we only find merit in two of those points.
The appellant contends that he was subjected to double jeopardy through his convictions for both sale and possession of a single ten dollar bag of marijuana on December 1, 1986. We agree, Blanco v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and we reverse the appellant’s conviction for the lesser degree offense of possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana.
The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in not supplying written findings in support of the adjudication of him as a habitual offender. Again, we agree, Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and we remand for resentencing. If the trial judge is able to support his determination that the appellant should be sentenced as a habitual offender with written findings evidenced by record facts, he may resentence the appellant above the statutory maximum but within the guidelines.
We note that the judgment incorrectly reflects that the appellant was found guilty under count three of violating section 893.-13(l)(e), which statute prohibits the sale of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school. The information does not charge the appellant with selling marijuana near a school. Accordingly, we direct that the judgment with respect to count three be corrected.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimenez v. State, 554 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. The defendant was convicted of two counts each of possession and sale of cocaine. As the state concedes, a defendant may not be convicted and sentenced for both the sale and possession of the same contraband. Chapman v. State, 544 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989); Blanca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, the convictions and sentences for the two counts of possession of cocaine must…
Authorities Cited
- Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Garcia v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Melquiades Blanca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)