JOHN WILLIE STEWART, 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.
Stewart was convicted of delivery and possession of cocaine across six separate informations and challenged both his trial conviction and sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing order, holding that consecutive sentences for delivery and possession of the same cocaine violated sentencing law.
The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to review the list of information numbers and dates as this was authorized under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and could not have affected the verdict given the overwhelming evidence. However, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for possession and delivery of the same cocaine, as the court lacks authority to both enhance sentences as a habitual offender and order those enhanced sentences to run consecutively for offenses arising from the same transaction.
[1] A trial court does not err by allowing the jury to review a list of case numbers and dates of offenses if the list provides less information than the charging instruments…
[2] A trial court's action in sending unauthorized material to the jury room is permissible if the state can show no reasonable possibility that the material affected the ver…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 state has the burden of showing there was no reasonable possibility that the unauthorized material affected the jury's verdict.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing claims of jury exposure to unauthorized materials during deliberation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart was charged in six separate informations with one count each of delivery of and possession of cocaine. He was convicted on four of the six inf…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Stewart contends that the trial court committed trial error and also erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the convictions of delivery of and possession of cocaine. We affirm the convictions, but reverse for resentencing with instructions that the sentences be imposed concurrently.
During deliberation, the jury specifically requested the case numbers and the respective dates of the six informations charging the alleged offenses. Over defendant’s objection, the court sent to the jury room a piece of paper listing the information numbers and the dates the offenses allegedly occurred.
The state has the burden of showing there was no reasonable possibility that the unauthorized material affected the jury’s verdict. State v. Hamilton, 574 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1991). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400 permits the jury to take into the jury room for deliberation a copy of the charges against the defendant. The list in question provided far less information than that contained in the actual charging instruments. The appellant contends that the danger apparent in the judge’s action is that the jury might affix unjustified importance to the list because it came directly from the judge.
We disagree with the appellant. Although Stewart was charged with one count each of delivery of and possession of cocaine in each of the six separate informations, the jury found him guilty as charged on four of the six informations. The evidence against him was overwhelming. An undercover detective participated in the purchases of cocaine, and audio and video recordings of the transactions were played for the jury. We conclude that the trial court’s actions were authorized, and, in any event, could not have contributed to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Stewart was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He correctly asserts that the court erred in imposing a sentence for each of the possession counts, consecutive to the sentence for the delivery counts with respect to each information. The comí is not authorized to both enhance a defendant’s sentence as a habitual offender and order each of the enhanced habitual offender sentences for the possession and the sale of the same identical piece of cocaine to run consecutive to one another. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 525 (Fla.1993), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), rehearing denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 686, 130 L.Ed.2d 617 (1994). Although the offenses charged in each of the separate informations occurred on different dates, each of the offenses of delivery and possession charged in each information obviously occurred at the same time. Accordingly, we reverse the sentences and remand this case with instructions that Stewart’s enhanced sentences be ordered to run concurrently.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 805 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…is no reasonable possibility the unauthorized materials that were present in the jury room affected the verdict. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motions for mistrial and new trial. See Stewart v. State, 664 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The appellant also challenges the habitual felony offender sentences imposed on both counts. The State presented certified copies of judgments for the predicate felonies. At the sentencing hearing, the appellant objected that t…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Thewell Eugene Hamilton, 574 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1991)