JAMES EDWARD NETTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Affirmed conviction for cocaine sale where defendant initiated the second transaction and entrapment defense was unavailable as a matter of law.
Entrapment is not available as a defense when the defendant himself initiates the sale transaction.
[1] Entrapment defense is unavailable when the defendant, rather than law enforcement, initiates the drug sale transaction.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with two counts of possession and two counts of sale of cocaine to the same individual on the same day. After the first sale, de…
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 Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By information, the appellant was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine, and two counts of sale of cocaine to the same individual on the same day.
The trial court found the defendant not guilty of the possession and sale as to the first transaction, upon the plea of entrapment. But, he found no entrapment involved in the transaction resulting in the second transaction. There is a dispute in the record, but at this stage, the conflicts are resolved in favor of the trial court’s ruling. Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 68; Shuler v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So. 2d 312; Starling v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 645. And, there is evidence which indicates that at the conclusion of the first sale the defendant advised the purchaser that he had an additional packet of cocaine; gave her his telephone number; and that if she liked the first one to call him and he would make the second sale. This she did, approximately three hours after the first sale, returned to the defendant’s home and purchased the cocaine at a higher price than the original transaction.
It is apparent that the evidence in the record is susceptible to the view that the defendant initiated the second sale and, therefore, the defense of entrapment was not available to him. State v. Rouse, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 79; Brosi v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 849.
The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nettle v. State, 298 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 291 So. 2d 20. ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ADKINS, C. J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Sobol v. Sobol, 191 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Starling v. State, 263 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Brosi v. State, 263 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Shuler v. State, 213 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)