STEVEN VAN AERNAM, 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.
Steven Van Aernam appeals convictions for unlawful sale of marijuana and unlawful possession of marijuana with conspiracy from Volusia County Felony Court. The District Court affirmed the sale conviction but reversed the possession conviction, finding that both charges arose from a single transaction and only one sentence could be imposed on the higher offense.
Only one sentence on the higher offense may be imposed when sale and possession charges arise from a single transaction. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the evidence supporting the search warrant was sufficiently substantial and competent. The sale conviction is affirmed, but the possession conviction is reversed and set aside.
[1] A point on appeal relating to the disqualification of a trial judge is rejected when the appellant fails to file a supplemental record as permitted by the court.
[2] Evidence adduced at a hearing on a motion to suppress is sufficient to support the trial court's ruling if it is substantial and competent.
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“Under the circumstances, only one sentence on the higher offense may be imposed.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that multiple sentences cannot be imposed when charges arise 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 intelligenceAppellant was tried on two separate informations in Volusia County Felony Court: one for unlawful sale of marijuana and another for unlawful possessio…
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 Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant herein was tried in the Felony Court of Record of Volusia County on two separate informations, the first of which charged him with the unlawful sale of marijuana and the second with the unlawful possession of marijuana and conspiracy. From the judgments of conviction and sentence in each case based upon jury verdicts finding appellant guilty as charged, this appeal is taken.
At the request of appellant’s counsel, this court granted additional time for supplementing the record by such additional affidavits, pleadings, and other evidence as may relate to the alleged failure of the trial judge to disqualify himself in response to a motion filed by appellant. Because of the failure of appellant to file a supplemental record as permitted by the court, the point on appeal relating to the disqualification of the trial judge is rejected.
Appellant’s second and last point on appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress the evidence proffered against him on the ground that the informant on whose information the search warrant issued was not sufficiently known to the af-fiant to support the allegation of probable cause. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence adduced before the court at its hearing on the motion to suppress was sufficiently substantial and competent to support the ruling complained about.
Our review of the record reveals without dispute that there was a single transaction out of which both charges against appellant arose. His sale of the marijuana for which he was charged in one information and his possession of the same drug for which he was charged in the second information are but different aspects of the same transaction. Under the circumstances, only one sentence on the higher offense may be imposed. On the authority of Yost v. State (Fla.App.1971) 243 So.2d 469, the sentence imposed upon appellant for the sale of marijuana as charged in Case No. 2135 in the trial court is affirmed, and the sentence imposed on the conviction for possession of marijuana in Case No. 1952 in the trial court is reversed, set aside, and held for naught.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.