PATRICK M. BADGETT, SR., 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.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the prescription defense, which is available to individuals authorized to possess controlled substances on behalf of a prescription holder.
The prescription defense under Florida Statutes section 893.13(6)(a) is available to any individual authorized by the prescription holder to possess the controlled substance, not only the prescription holder.
[1] The prescription defense under Florida Statutes section 893.13(6)(a) is available to any individual authorized by the prescription holder to possess controlled substances…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription. The prescription defense is available to the prescription holder and any individual authorized by the prescription holder to hold the medications on his or her behalf.”
Court explaining the scope of the prescription defense under Florida law.
Badgett was charged with trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of methadone. The trial court failed to instruct the jury on the prescription def…
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 Prescription Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Patrick M. Badgett, Senior, appeals the judgment and sentence imposed for Count I, trafficking in illegal drugs in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)l., Florida Statutes (2010), and Count VI, possession of methadone in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010). Pursuant to the State’s appropriate concession of error in the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on Badgett’s “prescription defense,” *321we reverse and remand for a new trial.1 Williams v. State, 85 So.3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing for new trial where trial court was of the mistaken apparent belief that the prescription defense was only available to the prescription holder and thus did not instruct jury on that defense); State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription. The prescription defense is available to the prescription holder and any individual authorized by the prescription holder to hold the medications on his or her behalf.” citing McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding prescription defense available to wife who asserted that she was holding her husband’s pills on his behalf); O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCOY v. State, 56 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- O'Hara v. State, 964 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- State v. Latona, 75 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Gress v. State, 85 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Williams v. State, 85 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)