WILLIE WALKER, 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.
Walker appeals his conviction for unlawful possession and sale of marijuana, challenging the trial court's imposition of separate sentences for both counts. The appellate court affirms the conviction but reverses the sentence on the possession count, holding that when multiple counts arise from the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed for the highest offense.
The court held that in Florida, when an information contains multiple counts that are facets or phases of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed—for the highest offense charged. Therefore, the sentence on the possession count must be reversed and set aside.
[1] Where an information charges separate offenses arising from the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and that sentence should be for the highest offense ch…
[2] The unlawful possession and sale of a narcotic drug, when arising from the same transaction, constitute separate facets of a single offense for sentencing purposes.
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 governing legal rule for sentencing on multiple counts 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 intelligenceWalker was charged in two counts of an information: count one for unlawful possession of marijuana and count two for unlawful sale of the same drug, b…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Narcotic Drug cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the unlawful possession and sale of a narcotic drug.
By one of his two points on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it imposed separate sentences as to each of the two counts of the information of which he was found guilty by the jury.
The information filed against appellant charged him in count one with the unlawful possession of marijuana and in count two with the unlawful sale of the same drug. Each of the offenses was alleged to have been committed on the same day. The evidence adduced at the trial established that the marijuana which appellant was charged with unlawfully possessing was the same drug of which he was charged with making an unlawful sale.
In the case of Yost v. State1 a similar factual situation was found to exist as in the case sub judice. Yost was charged in separate counts of an information with both the unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. Upon his conviction the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of years on each of the separate counts of which he was found guilty. In setting aside the sentences and remanding the case for appropriate resentencing by the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal said:
“We now consider the defendant’s third point, that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to correct sentences. 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. *5151953, 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). * * *”
The unlawful possession and sale of marijuana for which appellant was convicted in the case sub judice are but separate facets or phases of the same transaction, for the conviction of which only one sentence may be imposed.
We have considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal but find it to be without substantial merit. The judgment of conviction and sentence on count two of the information charging appellant with the unlawful sale of marijuana is affirmed, but the sentence imposed on count one charging the unlawful possession of marijuana is reversed and set aside.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 286 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1973)…of marijuana. The court in Yost held that where an information contains more than one count but each is a facet of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed. The principle enunciated in Yost was adopted by this court in Walker v. State, 261 So. 2d 514 (Fla.App.1972). Subsequent to Yost and Walker, the Supreme Court recently decided Cone and Sanders v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Opinion filed March 7, 1973). In Cone and Sanders, the court held that armed robbery and displaying or using a firearm during…
-
Walker v. State, 266 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 261 So. 2d 514. ROBERTS, C. J, and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Foster v. State, 276 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…of marijuana. The court in Yost held that where an information contains more than one count but each is a facet of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed. The principle enunciated in Yost was adopted by this court in Walker v. State, 261 So. 2d 514 (Fla.App.1972). Subsequent to Yost and Walker, the Supreme Court recently decided Cone and Sanders v. State, Case No. 42,760 (Opinion filed March 7, 1973). In Cone and Sanders, the court held that armed robbery and displaying or using a firearm duri…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Williams v. State, 69 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)
- Edmond Wyche v. State, 178 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Wells v. State, 168 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)