JAMES AUGUSTUS HUNT, 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.
James Augustus Hunt appealed his conviction and sentences for drug offenses. The court affirmed Hunt's conviction but found the sentences illegal because he received separate sentences for possession and sale of heroin on the same date, which constitute facets of a single transaction.
The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence for possession of heroin on March 3, 1971 is set aside because possession and sale of heroin on the same date constitute facets of a single transaction and only one sentence should be imposed—the sentence for the more serious offense (sale).
[1] A judgment of conviction will be affirmed when the appellant fails to demonstrate reversible error.
[2] Sentences imposed for possession and sale of a controlled substance arising from the same transaction are illegal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is established law in Florida that where convictions are entered on two offenses, each of which constitutes a facet of a single transaction, it is improper to impose sentence on each.”
Establishes the foundational rule that multiple sentences cannot be imposed for offenses arising from a single transaction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunt was convicted of possession of heroin on March 3, 1971 (count one) and sale of heroin on the same date (count three). The court imposed separate …
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.
This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court of conviction is affirmed. See Kraus v. State, 243 So.2d 214 (Fla.App.1971) and Green v. State, 121 Fla. 307, 163 So. 712 (1935).
The sentences imposed in this cause, however, are illegal under the rule laid down in Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.1971) and Martin v. State, 251 So.2d 283 (Fla.App.1971). The latter case is directly in point, involving the sale and possession of heroin. In our opinion in that case we said:
“Defendant’s second point pertains to the sentences upon each count of the information. The convictions of possession and sale of heroin on the 13th day of May, 1970, were upon a facet or phase of the same transaction. The same is true of the convictions of possession and sale of heroin on the 15th day of May, 1970. As stated in Wells v. State, 168 So.2d 787 (Fla.App.3d, 1964):
“ ‘ * * * It is established law in Florida that where convictions are entered on two offenses, each of which constitutes a facet of a single transaction, it is improper to impose sentence on each. Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 766; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630; Sharon v. State, Fla.App., 156 So.2d 677, supra. In such a case, only one sentence should be imposed and that sentence should be on the highest offense charged. * * 5¡it
“Also see Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.3d, 1971). We consider the sale of the contraband to be the more serious, or highest, offense, therefore, the sentences imposed for possession of heroin on the 13th day of May, 1970, and possession of heroin on the 15th day of May, 1970, are set aside- The sentences imposed for sale of heroin on the 13th day of May, 1970, the sale of cocaine on the 14th day of May, 1970, and the sale of heroin on the 15th day of May, 1970, are affirmed.
“Affirmed in part and reversed in part.”
In the case at bar the first count of the information charges the possession of heroin on March 3, 1971, and the second count charges the sale of heroin on the same date. Since each of the offenses constitutes a facet of a single transaction and since the sale of the contraband is the more serious or highest, offense, the sentence imposed for possession on March 3, 1971, is set aside.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Temperance Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…o. 2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Jackson v. State, 270 So. 2d 30 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. State, 268 So. 2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Jones v. State, 265 So. 2d 514 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Carr v. State, 264 So. 2d 871 (Fla.1st DCA 1972); Hunt v. State, 264 So. 2d 855 (Fla.lst DCA 1972); Shaw v. State, 264 So. 2d 95 (Fla.lst DCA 1972). Affirmed as to the judgments of conviction; affirmed as to sentence and fine on the sale of cocaine count; reversed as to the sentence on the possession of cocaine count.…
-
Mendez v. State, 280 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ing [*527] out of the same criminal transaction, even while finding the sentences rendered thereon to be illegal. See also, Caivano v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 245; Gonzalez v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 552; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 855; Carr v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 871. Moreover, although we recognize that the offenses prescribed in §§ 814.03(2) and 811.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., are related, it is generally held that where two separate statues are violated two separate a…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Williams v. State, 69 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)
- Macon Tribue v. State, 106 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Green v. State, 121 Fla. 307 (Fla. 1935)
- Martin v. State, 251 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Wells v. State, 168 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Kraus v. State, 243 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)