EVERALD DICKS, 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.
Possession of multiple false identification cards under the statute constitutes a single offense, and the sentence for drug paraphernalia was erroneous.
Appellant was charged with four violations of section 322.212, Florida Statutes, for possessing false driver's licenses and identification cards. The …
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 Ambiguity In Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state charged appellant with four separate violations of section 322.212, Florida Statutes (1999) because he possessed false driver’s licenses and identification cards. Appellant argues that this should have resulted in only one conviction because the statute prohibits “any” forged driver’s license or identification card.
In State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1985), the defendant had been convicted of two counts for possessing two weapons at the same time, under a statute which prohibited possession of “any” weapon. Holding that a statute which uses the article “any” is ambiguous and must therefore be construed favorably to the defendant, our supreme court determined that possession of more than one prohibited item at the same time constitutes only one offense. We agree with appellant that Watts applies and reverse for appellant to be convicted and sentenced on only one count.
In addition, the state concedes that appellant was erroneously sentenced to more than one year of time served for posses sion of drug paraphernalia. We have considered the other issues raised and find them to be without merit.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brenton McNEIL v. State, 162 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…. Thus, by definition the word “any” is linguistically ambiguous. In the face of this ambiguity, we are required to construe the statute in the manner most favorable to Bell [the defendant] .... Id. at 961 (citation omitted); accord Dicks v. State, 840 So. 2d 408, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[A] statute which uses the article ‘any’ is ambiguous and must therefore be construed favorably to the defendant....” (applying the holding in State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1985))). Therefore, use of the term “any” s…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1985)