MAURICE FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Double Jeopardy Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Maurice Freeman appeals his judgment and sentence for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, each a violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), asserting that multiple punishments for the two crimes, arising out of a single drug transaction involving the same controlled substance, violated double jeopardy principles. We agree and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate one of Freeman’s convictions and to recalculate his sentence on the authority of Wheeler v. State, 549 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We also hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment. See Canty v. State, 471 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newell v. Best Sec. Sys., Inc., 560 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…5 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Id. at 235. Thus, the evidence of the prior criminal activity including residential burglaries in the surrounding area was relevant and admissible on the issue of foreseeability of criminal attack. Odice v. Pearson, 549 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The security expert was also expected to testify regarding the propriety of security measures taken in light of the prior criminal activity in the area. The trial court excluded his testimony both because the prior crimes did n…
-
Foster v. PO Folks, Inc., 674 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…and this includes the duty to protect such customers from violent criminal conduct which is reasonably foreseeable. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Odice v. Pearson, 549 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). This foreseeability requirement can be met by proving that the proprietor knew of or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises that was likely to cause harm to a patron. Stevens, at 34. In other words, a busines…
-
Bellevue v. Frenchy's S. Beach CAFÉ, Inc., 136 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…rd District has narrowed the application of Ameijeiras to those cases involving a public park. See Hill v. City of N. Miami Beach, 613 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We are also persuaded by the Fourth District’s opinion in Odice v. Pearson, 549 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), where the court reversed a final judgment in favor of the restaurant and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred by excluding reference to police reports concerning prior crimes committed off the restaura…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- Wilson v. Florida, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Christoffersen et ux. v. United States, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Wheeler v. State, 549 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Canty v. State, 471 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)