ANNA R. KEENAN, 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.
Anna Keenan appeals her conviction for possession and sale of marijuana. The court affirms her guilty verdicts on both counts but reverses her sentences, holding that when possession and sale charges arise from a single transaction, only one sentence for the highest offense should be imposed.
When an information contains multiple counts that are facets or phases of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and that sentence should be for the highest offense charged. The court affirmed the adjudication of guilt but reversed the sentences.
[1] A conviction for both possession and sale of the same contraband constitutes a single transaction for sentencing purposes.
[2] When multiple counts arise from a single transaction, only one sentence may be imposed for the highest offense charged.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In Florida, where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed; and the sentence which should be imposed is for the highest offense charged.”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that multiple sentences cannot be imposed for offenses arising from a single transaction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeenan was charged in an information with two counts: possession of marijuana and sale of marijuana. At trial, evidence showed the marijuana possessed…
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 Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case appellant Anna R. Keenan appeals to this Court from a judgment of conviction entered against her in a narcotic case.
Keenan was informed against in two counts of an information, the first count charging possession of marijuana and the second count charging sale of marijuana. Upon trial, she was found guilty of both counts and was sentenced by the Court to serve a period of six months to five years on each count of the information, the sentences to run consecutively. Motions for new trial and to vacate the sentence being denied, she appeals the judgment and sentence to this Court. We affirm as to the adjudication of guilt on the merits of the charge, but reverse as to the two sentences imposed.
There was ample evidence adduced at the trial to support the finding of guilt and adjudication as to either or both counts of possession and sale. But it conclusively appears that the marijuana possessed was the marijuana sold, thus in effect making the possession and sale a single transaction.
The 3rd District Court in Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469, held that in such situation only one sentence should be imposed and that for the highest offense charged. We quote from the opinion on page 471:
“In Florida, where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed; and the sentence which should be imposed is for the highest offense charged. See Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 766, 767; Wells v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 787; and Wyche v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 875, 877 (fundamental error). In the case below, the defendant was charged as follows: Count I with unlawful sale of marijuana on August 9, 1969 and in Count III with unlawful possession of marijuana on August 9, 1969; and in Count II with unlawful sale of marijuana on August 12, 1969, and in Count IV with unlawful possession of marijuana on August 12, 1969. In each instance, the marijuana alleged possessed on the specified date was the marijuana sold to the undercover agents on the same date. In short, Counts I and III and Counts II and IV, respectively, represent a facet or phase of a single transaction and justify but one sentence as to each of the two combined counts.”
This 2nd District Court has recently held to the same effect as to counts alleging the unlawful sale of unregistered securities and in parallel counts the unlawful engaging in business as a dealer in connection with the same securities. Easton v. State, Fla.App., 250 So.2d 294, opinion filed July 16, 1971.
Accordingly, the judgments as to the two counts are affirmed, but the sentences are vacated, and the cause is remanded with directions that the appellant Anna R. Keenan be presented to the trial Court and properly sentenced in accordance herewith.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…1953, 69 So. 2d 761; Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190; Washington v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So.765; Sparks v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 256 So. 2d 537; Martin v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1971, 251 So. 2d 283; Keenan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 253 So. 2d 273; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 253 So. 2d 459; Yost v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 243 So. 2d 469; Easton v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 250 So. 2d 294; Wyche v. State, Fla.App.2d 1965, 178 So. 2d 875; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.3d 1963, 156 So. 2d 677; Bu…
-
Saviano v. State, 287 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…such circumstances if the evidence established the defendant to be guilty as charged, the convictions for the separaté dates should have been either for the sale or for the possession thereof, [*105] but not for both. Keenan v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 273; Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 469; McGuire v. State, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 243. For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial. . That testimony as later given by the defendant, as to his de…
-
McGUIRE v. State, 260 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…aking the possession and sale a single transaction. Based upon the reasoning in Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 469, only one sentence should have been imposed and that for the highest offense charged. See also Keenan v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 273; and Martin v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 283. In all other respects we are of the opinion that the appellant’s allegations of error are without merit. See Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 744; Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Williams v. State, 69 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)
- Easton v. State, 250 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Edmond Wyche v. State, 178 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Wells v. State, 168 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)