LLOYD CAMPBELL, 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.
Lloyd Campbell was convicted of two counts of possessing contraband currency in a state prison based on a single incident where he was found with Japanese yen and U.S. currency. The appellate court reversed, holding that a single incident of possessing excess currency constitutes one offense, not two, and therefore violated the double jeopardy prohibition.
A single incident of possession of excess currency in violation of the statute constitutes one offense only, regardless of the cumulative amount involved or the types of currency possessed. Therefore, multiple counts arising from a single possession incident violates double jeopardy protections.
[1] A single incident of possessing excess currency in a state correctional institution constitutes one offense under Florida Statutes section 944.47(1)(c), regardless of the…
[2] Possession of multiple currencies during a single incident in a state correctional institution does not create separate offenses under Florida Statutes section 944.47(1)(…
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“when there is a single occurrence of possession of excess currency as proscribed by the statute, regardless of the amount involved, it is but one offense”
The core holding that a single incident of possession cannot support multiple counts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell, an inmate at a state correctional institution, was found in possession of a Japanese 10,000 Yen note (worth approximately $65 U.S.) and $300…
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 Actual Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Lloyd Campbell appeals his conviction and sentence for two counts of possession of contraband in a state prison in violation of section 944.47(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1989). Count I charged possession of U.S. currency in a denomination greater than $5. Count II alleged possession of U.S. currency in a total amount greater than $30. The facts disclosed that appellant was found in possession of a Japanese 10,-000 Yen note (worth approximately $65 U.S. at the time) and $300 in U.S. currency.
The statute under which appellant was convicted provides:
(l)(a) Except through regular channels as authorized by the officer in charge of the correctional institution, it is unlawful to introduce into or upon the grounds of any state correctional institution, or to take or attempt to take or send or attempt to send therefrom, any of the following articles which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this section, to-wit:
1. [A]ny currency ... given or transmitted, to any inmate of any state institution.
(c) It is unlawful for any inmate of any state correctional institution or any person while upon the grounds of any state correctional institution to be in actual or constructive possession of any article or thing declared by this section to be contraband, except as authorized by the officer in charge of such correctional institution.
Appellant’s argument is that by charging, convicting and sentencing him for two counts, when there was but a single incident in which he possessed any contraband (regardless of the cumulative value of the money or the fact that there were different currencies), violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. He relies on our holding in Schmitt v. State, 563 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA), juris. accepted, 569 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1990), where we held that use of the word “any” in the context of a statute proscribing possession of “any” photographfs] depicting children’s sexual conduct meant that a single offense was committed, regardless of the number of photographs possessed.
We agree with appellant that the same reasoning applies here. Had appellant been found with excess currency at different times, that might form the basis for multiple counts. That is not what occurred in this case. We hold that when there is a single occurrence of possession of excess currency as proscribed by the statute, regardless of the amount involved, it is but one offense. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to dismiss one of the two counts, and vacate the sentence entered thereon.
Our disposition of point I on appeal renders consideration of point II moot.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HERSEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Parrella, 736 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…the same criminal episode is subject to separate prosecution and punishment” because the statute modifies the term “firearm” with the article “a” denoting legislative intent to “make each firearm a separate unit of prosecution”); Campbell v. State, 586 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“when there is a single occurrence of possession of excess currency as proscribed by the statute, regardless of the amount of money involved, it is but one offense”); Schmitt v. State, 563 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approv…
-
State v. Rubio, 917 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ual acts involving children, could be prosecuted only on one count of possessing child pornography with intent to promote, since applicable statute specified “any” vio-lative material, rather than “a” piece of violative material); Campbell v. State, 586 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (single occurrence of inmate’s possession of excess currency was one offense, regardless of amount involved, under statute which prohibited possession of “any” currency; charging defendant with one count of possessing currency gr…
-
Martin v. State, 876 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ults in the highest number of total sentence points. Only one offense may be scored as the primary offense.” (Emphasis added). The use of the words “one offense” would not appear to include multiple counts of the same offense. See Campbell v. State, 586 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (finding that the defendant should not be charged with two counts of possession of contraband in a state prison based on the possession of excess currency because “when there is a single occurrence of possession of excess cur…
Authorities Cited
- Schmitt v. State, 563 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)