STEPHEN CROOMS, 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.
Stephen Crooms appealed his conviction for aggravated battery and possession of Tramadol. The court reversed his conviction for possession of Tramadol because Tramadol is not listed as a controlled substance under Florida law, making the charge a nonexistent crime. The court affirmed the aggravated battery convictions.
The court held that Count IV, charging possession of Tramadol as a controlled substance, alleges a nonexistent crime because Tramadol is not listed as a controlled substance in section 893.03, and therefore the conviction must be vacated. The court held that challenges to the voluntariness of a plea and special conditions of probation are not cognizable on direct appeal but must be addressed through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.
[1] A conviction for possession of a controlled substance is invalid when the substance is not listed in the Florida Statutes as a controlled substance.
[2] Conviction of a nonexistent crime constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Tramadol is not listed as a controlled substance in section 893.03, and thus its possession does not violate section 893.13(6)(a).”
Establishes the core basis for reversal—that the statute charged does not cover Tramadol
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with three counts of aggravated battery and possession of a controlled substance (Tramadol). The possession charge was brought u…
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 Nonexistent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
Stephen Crooms (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction and sentence for three counts of aggravated battery (Counts I, II, and III) and possession of a controlled substance (Count IV). Appellant, argues the trial court committed fundamental error by accepting his plea of nolo contende-re to Count IV. Finding that Count IV charged Appellant with a nonexistent crime, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count IV, and affirm Appellant’s remaining issues without prejudice.
The State charged Appellant with possession of a controlled substance,-Tramadol, citing section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2015). . Section 893.13(6)(a) provides:
A person may not' be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained .except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. A person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Section 893.03, Florida Statutes (2015), contains an exhaustive list of controlled substances, organized into one of five schedules. Tramadol is not listed as a controlled substance in section 893.03, and thus its possession does not violate section 893.13(6)(a). Although Appellant did not raise this issue below, “this court has consistently held that conviction of a nonexistent crime is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal.” Jordan v. State, 801 So.2d 1032, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Mundell v. State, 739 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 516 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)).
Appellant also raises ■ challenges to the voluntariness of his plea and the special conditions of his probation. We find that these challenges are not cognizable on direct appeal, but rather are more appropriately addressed as the subject of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003); Gafford v. State, 783 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We affirm without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise these issues through a timely, facially sufficient Rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED in PART; REVERSED in PART; ! REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS. '
LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003)
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Jordan v. State, 801 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Mundell v. State, 739 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)