STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
QUINTUS TYRONE HIGDON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in reducing a conviction for sale of cannabis within 1000 feet of a convenience business to simple possession, as sale of cannabis is a necessarily lesser-included offense.
The State charged Higdon with sale or delivery of cannabis within 1000 feet of a convenience business. A jury found him guilty, but the trial court re…
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 Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court’s ruling granting Quintus Higdon’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reducing Higdon’s conviction from sale or delivery of cannabis within 1000 feet of a convenience business to simple possession of cannabis. We reverse because the trial court should have reduced the conviction to sale of cannabis instead of simple possession.
The State charged Hidgon with sale or delivery of cannabis within 1000 feet of a convenience business, in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999). A trial was held, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The trial court subsequently reduced the conviction to possession of cannabis because the State failed to establish that the business where the offense took place was a “convenience business” as defined in section 812.171, Florida Statutes (1999).
On appeal, the State argues, as it did below, that the conviction should be reduced to sale or delivery of cannabis because that offense is a necessarily lesser-included offense of the crime charged. Higdon concedes error. We agree that the sale of cannabis is a necessarily lesser-included offense of sale within 1000 feet of a convenience business. See Harris v. State, 655 So. 2d 1179, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding sale of cocaine is a necessarily lesser-included offense of sale within a certain distance of a housing facility). Accordingly, the trial court erred in reducing the conviction to simple possession. We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence. On remand the trial court is to enter judgment for the necessarily lesser-included offense of sale of cannabis and resentence Higdon accordingly. See § 924.34, Fla. Stat. (1999).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charleston Karrem Larry v. State, 61 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…t of acquittal, he failed to raise this obvious defense. Had it been raised, the trial court would have been obliged to reduce the charge to the necessarily lesser-included offense of deliv [*1207] ery of a controlled substance. See State v. Higdon, 814 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 655 So. 2d 1179, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Ineffective assistance of counsel is found when counsel’s performance falls outside the range of reasonable professional assistance and when there is a reasonable…
-
State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…s the same effect as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and clearly this court has jurisdiction to review orders on motions for judgments of acquittal after a jury verdict. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(E); see also State v. Higdon, 814 So. 2d 1196, 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (involving appeal from an order granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). III. The State was not required to prove that the boat was subject to a license tax in order to prove the crime of BUI. The relev…
Authorities Cited
- Shabazz Randazo Harris v. State, 655 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)