PETER GRANT, 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.
Peter Grant appealed his convictions for drug offenses. The court reversed his convictions for unlawful cocaine possession based on double jeopardy principles, as those convictions arose from the same conduct underlying his sale convictions, but affirmed his convictions for sale or delivery of cocaine.
The court reversed the possession convictions as violating double jeopardy because they arose entirely from the same criminal acts underlying the sale convictions. The court rejected Grant's hearsay objection as not preserved for appellate review because he failed to object contemporaneously when the testimony was offered at trial, despite his earlier objection during opening statement.
[1] Convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance are barred by double jeopardy when they arise from the same underlying criminal acts as convictions for sale…
[2] A defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to hearsay testimony when it is offered in evidence preserves the issue for appellate review.
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 intelligence“the cocaine possession convictions are barred by the constitutional principles of double jeopardy”
Establishes the legal basis for reversing the possession convictions arising from the same conduct as the sale convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter Grant was convicted by jury of two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine to undercover police officers and two counts of unlawful possession of …
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 Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Peter Grant from judgments of conviction and sentences for (1) two counts of sale or delivery of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and (2) two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, entered following an adverse jury verdict.
Based on the state’s confession of error with which we entirely agree, the judgments of conviction and sentences imposed below for the two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, are hereby reversed. It is undisputed that these convictions arise entirely out of two underlying criminal acts of the defendant in selling a quantity of cocaine to two undercover police officers, the same cocaine which forms the basis for the defendant’s dual convictions 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 trial. This testimony was not objected to by the defendant when offered in evidence by the state, and, consequently, the point has not been preserved for appellate review. The fact that the defendant had previously objected when the prosecutor outlined this testimony in his opening statement to the jury does not satisfy the requirement that the offending testimony must be contemporaneously objected to when offered in evidence in order to preserve the point for appellate review. See Castor v. State 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). In any event, the error in allowing the state to mention the hearsay testimony in opening statement was entirely harmless.
The judgments of conviction and sentences for sale or delivery of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, are affirmed; the judgments of conviction and sentences for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, are reversed and the defendant is hereby discharged therefrom.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 604 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1990); Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981); Grant v. State, 555 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Tumulty v. State, 489 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 496 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1989)
- Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Garcia v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Melquiades Blanca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Joseph v. State, 541 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)