CHARLES MILTON, PETITIONER,

v.

F.P.P.C./F.D.O.C., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Ayotte v. State, 67 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …llant had it known there existed a prescription defense and it had the option to accept [his] affirmative defense.” McCoy v. State, 56 So. 3d at 40-41. This ease is analogous to McCoy v. State, 56 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) and Glovacz v. State; 60 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). As in those cases, there was conflicting evidence regarding a transaction of the controlled substance, failure by all participants and the standard jury instructions to acknowledge the statutory exceptions for possession pursuan…
• Ramirez v. State, 125 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
  …onstituted fundamental error. 56 So. 3d at 40. At trial, “[t]he defendant did not deny that she possessed the drug, but she claimed that she was merely carrying the drug in her purse for her husband, who held a valid prescription.” Glovacz v. State, 60 So. 3d 423, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (discussing the facts of McCoy). [*177] In reversing, the McCoy court held that the defendant satisfied the two elements of Martinez, finding that the prescription defense “constituted [the defendant’s] only defense to the c…
• DAY v. State, 119 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
  …applied by this Court in three separate opinions dealing with the failure to give the prescription defense and resulted in reversals based upon the fundamental error doctrine. See Ayotte v. State, 67 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Glovacz v. State, 60 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); McCoy v. State, 56 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We, however, conclude that the three prior cases are factually dissimilar to the facts of this case. In McCoy, we, in interpreting Martinez, held that “[a] defendant is deprived…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Pacha v. Honorable Dominick J. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)