BOBBY CHARLES OLIVER, 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.
Court reversed convictions for possession with intent to sell and sale of cocaine arising from two controlled buys, holding that separate convictions for both crimes from a single transaction violate double jeopardy principles, and remanded for vacation of one conviction per transaction and resentencing.
Separate convictions and punishments for both possession with intent to sell and sale of cocaine arising from a single transaction involving the same controlled substance violate double jeopardy principles.
[1] Separate convictions and punishments for both possession with intent to sell and sale of the same controlled substance arising from a single transaction violate double je…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOliver was charged with two counts of possession with intent to sell cocaine and two counts of sale of cocaine arising from two separate controlled bu…
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 Controlled Substance Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Oliver appeals from his conviction and sentencing for two counts of possession with intent to sell cocaine and two counts of sale of cocaine. The charges arise out of two separate controlled buys of narcotics. For each occurrence, the appellant was charged with both possession with intent to sell and sale. In Wheeler v. State, 549 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court held that separate convictions and punishments for both crimes arising out of a single transaction and involving the same controlled substance violated the principles of double jeopardy. We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court for vacation of one of the convictions as to each transaction and for appropriate resentencing.
The appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in imposing a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous written reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines. In light of recent opinions of this court, including Brown v. State, 565 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which holds that Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), shall only be applied prospectively, we find that the procedure utilized by the trial judge was not in error. Resentencing in this case, however, will be subject to the requirements of Ree, supra.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Wheeler v. State, 549 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Brown v. State, 565 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)