PETER B. DOLINGER, 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.
Peter Dolinger appeals denial of postconviction relief after conviction for obtaining possession of a controlled substance by fraud and simple possession. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing without Dolinger's presence, but affirmed the denial of relief on his double jeopardy claim.
The court held that the trial court erred by conducting resentencing without Dolinger's presence and therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed denial of relief on the double jeopardy claim because the two offenses each contain elements the other does not and therefore are separate, distinct offenses.
[1] A defendant has a right to be present at a resentencing hearing conducted to correct a sentencing error.
[2] Dual convictions for obtaining possession of a controlled substance by fraud and possession of a controlled substance are permissible when each offense contains an elemen…
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 court erred by conducting a resentencing hearing to correct a sentencing error without allowing him to be present. We agree.”
Establishes the primary holding that the defendant has a right to be present at resentencing proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDolinger was convicted of two counts: (1) obtaining possession of a controlled substance by fraud under Florida Statute § 893.13(3)(a)(1), and (2) pos…
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 Possession (Actual And Constructive) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Peter B. Dolinger appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. He raises two grounds, one of which requires reversal. First, he claims that the court erred by conducting a resentencing hearing to correct a sentencing error without allowing him to be present. We agree. See Griffin v. State, 517 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1987) and State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1983).
Dolinger’s second claim is without merit but warrants discussion. Dolinger was convicted of count one, obtaining possession of a controlled substance by fraud1 and count two, possession of a controlled substance.2 He claims that count two is a necessarily included offense of count one and, therefore, his dual conviction is barred by double jeopardy. We disagree, and affirm denial of relief on this point because each offense, as defined by its applicable statute, includes an element that the other does not. The charge of obtaining possession of a controlled substance by fraud includes the element of misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge. The charge of possession of a controlled substance does not. Likewise, the charge of possession of a controlled substance includes the element of actual or constructive possession. The fraud charge does not in that the State need only prove an attempt to possess. Thus, they are separate offenses for which separate convictions and sentences may be imposed. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); State v. McCloud, 577 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1991); see also section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief as to the double jeopardy claim but reverse and remand for resentencing.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(3)(a)(l) provides that it is unlawful for any person to "acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.”
. Section 893.13(l)(f) provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person to “be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- State v. McCLOUD, 577 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)
- Griffin v. State, 517 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1987)