THOMAS T. LIETCH, 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.
Defendant's convictions for drug possession on three counts arising from a single criminal transaction are affirmed, but the case is remanded to impose a single sentence rather than three concurrent sentences.
When multiple drug possession convictions arise from the same criminal transaction occurring at the same time and place, a single sentence must be imposed rather than separate concurrent sentences for each count.
[1] Multiple convictions arising from a single criminal transaction occurring at the same time and place must result in a single sentence rather than separate concurrent sent…
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted on three counts of unlawful drug possession (a central nervous system stimulant and a barbiturate) under F.S. 1967 § 404.02(4)…
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 Single Criminal Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
The information under which the defendant was convicted charged defendant in three counts with unlawful possession of a central nervous system stimulant and a barbiturate in violation of F.S.1967, section 404.02(4), F.S.A. A jury found the defendant guilty on each count. Thereafter a separate adjudication and sentence were entered on each verdict. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months to two years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The evidence showed that possession of the drugs occurred at the same time and place. The appellant contends and the State agrees that the evidence demonstrates that the violations charged to the defendant under the separate counts were merely different facets of the same criminal transaction. We concur. Therefore, the adjudications of guilt are affirmed, but the cause is remanded to the trial court to vacate the present sentences and to enter a single sentence for six months to two years. See Simmons v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So.2d 436; Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427; Bullard v. State, Fla.App.1963, *204151 So.2d 343; and Wyche v. State, Fla. App.1965,178 So.2d 875.
We have reviewed all other points argued in the appellant’s brief and are of the opinion that they do not demonstrate error or require discussion.
Remanded with instructions.
WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)…on. It is petitioner’s position that she should be discharged from custody, or, alternatively, since only a single sentence was authorized, that the case should be remanded for resentencing. To support this contention, she relies on Lietch v. State, 248 So. 2d 203 (Fla.App. 4th 1971), cert. den. 253 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1971), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a conviction on three counts of unlawful possession of a central nervous system stimulant and a barbiturate could only result in a sing…
-
White v. State, 274 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…misleading (if not erroneous) since count two of the information charged grand larceny, whereas the jury by its verdict found appellant guilty of petit larceny. Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance upon the case of Lietch v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 203, as justification for failure to sentence appellant on the separate conviction of petit larceny was misplaced. The Lietch case involved merely different facets of the same criminal transaction. That is inapposite to this case. The crime of breaking…
-
Lore v. State, 267 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…is reason we hold that the three offenses charged to the defendant should be treated as different facets of the same criminal transaction and one sentence should be entered under Section 817.67(2), F.S.1969, F.S.A. See Lietch v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 203 (cert. den. Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 875). The adjudications of guilt are affirmed, but the cause is remanded to the trial court [*702] to vacate the present sentences and enter a single sentence consistent with the foregoing. Remanded with instructio…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1942)
- Edmond Wyche v. State, 178 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Norwood v. State, 86 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1956)
- Forsythe v. Spielberger, 86 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1956)
- Bullard v. State, 151 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)