RICK FARRELL, 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.
Farrell appealed his conviction for possession and sale of LSD, arguing the trial court erred by imposing two consecutive sentences for conduct arising from the same transaction. The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the possession sentence as improper, holding that only one sentence should be imposed when multiple counts arise from the same transaction.
The convictions are affirmed, but the sentence for possession is vacated. Only one sentence may be imposed when multiple counts in an information are facets of the same transaction. The sentence for the highest offense charged (sale) should be imposed and the lesser offense sentence (possession) must be set aside.
[1] Where an information contains multiple counts arising from the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and it must be for the highest offense charged.
[2] A sentence imposed for a lesser offense arising from the same transaction as a higher offense must be vacated.
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“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 principle that guides reversal of the dual sentence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with two counts: possession of LSD and sale of LSD. A jury found him guilty on both counts, and the trial court sentenced him to…
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 Possession Of Lsd cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after being found guilty by a jury on charges of possession and sale of an hallucinogenic drug, LSD.
The information against appellant charged him with two counts, possession of LSD and sale of LSD. Pursuant to jury verdict, appellant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve two years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing two> separate sentences, and the State agrees. The evidence adduced at trial clearly revealed that both counts charged herein were a facet of the same transaction or occurrence. It is established law in Florida that 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. Williams v. State, 69 So.2d 766 (Fla.1953); Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App. 3d, 1971); Martin v. State, 251 So.2d 283 (Fla.App. 1st, 1971). As the sale count is the highest offense charged, the sentence imposed for possession is set aside. The sentence imposed for sale is affirmed.
We have considered appellant’s remaining point of error concerning the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informer, and find it to be substantially without merit.
For the reasons hereinabove set out, the convictions are affirmed, but the sentence for possession is vacated, and this cause is remanded with directions that appellant be properly sentenced in accordance herewith.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Williams v. State, 69 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)
- Martin v. State, 251 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)