STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT DILORETO, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's order dismissing a trafficking charge for oxycodone, arguing the drug fell under the trafficking statute. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trafficking statute applies only to drugs explicitly specified in its terms—morphine, opium, and their derivatives—and not to all controlled substances listed elsewhere in the drug code.
The trafficking statute under Section 893.135(1)(c)3 does not encompass all controlled substances listed in the drug code, but only those specifically named in the statute itself—morphine, opium, and their derivatives. Therefore, the charge of trafficking in oxycodone cannot be prosecuted under that statute.
[1] A criminal statute must be strictly construed according to its plain meaning.
[2] Trafficking in illegal drugs under Florida Statute Section 893.135(1)(c)3 (1989) is limited to specific controlled substances enumerated within that section, not all subs…
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 trial court correctly recognized that trafficking under section 893.135(l)(c)3 (1989) does not encompass all controlled substances listed in sections 893.03(l)(b) or (2)(a), Florida Statutes, but only those specified by its terms.”
Establishes the core holding that the trafficking statute applies only to explicitly named substances, not all controlled substances in the drug code.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant DiLoreto was charged with trafficking in oxycodone under Florida Statute Section 893.135(1)(c)3. The oxycodone at issue was derived from pap…
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 Trafficking In Illegal Drugs cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of trafficking in oxycodone as not stating a crime punishable, as charged, under Florida Statute Section 893.135(l)(c)3 (1989). That section provides, ify pertinent part:
Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, or any salt, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(l)(b) or (2)(a), or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance ... commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in illegal drugs.”
It is undisputed that, here, the drug in question was derived from the plant pa-paver bracteatum,1 which is not an opium plant. The state concedes that the controlled substance is not heroin, morphine, opium, or any salt, isomer, or salt of an isomer, of morphine or opium; nor is it manufactured from any such substance.
The trial court correctly recognized that trafficking under section 893.135(l)(c)3 (1989)2 does not encompass all controlled substances listed in sections 893.03(l)(b) or (2)(a), Florida Statutes, but only those specified by its terms. The statute must be accorded its plain meaning. Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1976); Arthur v. State, 391 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
The state would expand the interpretation of the statute to include all substances listed in section 893.03(l)(b) or (2)(a), notwithstanding the explicit wording of the statute. However, criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Arthur, 391 So. 2d at 339.
We note, as recognized by the trial court in the record, that the possession of the drugs in question may still be charged under another section. See § 893.13, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Therefore, the order is affirmed.
LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. . Oxycodone is a derivative of thebaine. The uncontroverted expert testimony presented at trial stated that thebaine is sometimes derived from the plant papaver somnijerium, a constituent of the opium plant. However, the testimony also revealed that the thebaine in this case was derived from a poppy called papaver bractea-tum rather than the opium poppy.
. We note that the statute was amended in 1991. However, the amendment did not involve the substance of this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Siernes, 608 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on authority of Chambers v. State, 602 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and State v. Diloreto, 600 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Chambers v. State, 602 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Melvin E. Chambers appeals his judgment and sentence. Chambers was convicted of trafficking in oxycodone, in violation of section 893.135(1)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (1989). In State v. Diloreto, 600 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), this court held that oxycodone does not fall within the statutory restriction of section 893.135(l)(c)(l). Therefore, on the authority of Diloreto, we reverse. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DELL and GUNTHER, JJ„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C…
-
Todd v. State, 648 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…n on the claimed, and now admitted, ground that Dilaudid is neither “morphine, opium, or any salt, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin” as specifically set forth in § 893.135(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987).1 Relying on State v. Diloreto, 600 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), which held that possession of a substance which did not meet this chemical definition could not justify a conviction for violation of section 893.135(l)(c), even though it was, like hydromorphone, specifically designated in sect…
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
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976)
- Arthur v. State, 391 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)