JAMES LEWIS, 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.
James Lewis was convicted of unlawful possession of hashish and possession of cocaine. On appeal, Lewis challenged the convictions on multiple grounds, including whether hashish and cocaine are controlled substances, whether police violated entry requirements, whether the confidential informant should have been produced, and whether consecutive sentences were proper. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentences.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences. The court held that: (1) hashish and cocaine are listed as controlled substances under Florida law; (2) section 901.19 was inapplicable because officers entered with the permission of the occupants and made no forcible entry; (3) the state met its obligation by providing the informant's name and address and demonstrating reasonable efforts to locate the informant; and (4) consecutive sentences for simultaneous possession offenses are permissible.
[1] A statute governing an officer's right to break into a building to make an arrest is inapplicable when officers enter premises with the permission of the occupants.
[2] The state's reasonable efforts to locate a confidential informant, after providing the informant's name and last known address to the defense, satisfy discovery obligatio…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We find appellant's first contention that hashish and cocairie are not listed as controlled substances to be devoid of merit in that this same issue previously has been determined by this court.”
Establishes that the court rejected Lewis's argument that hashish and cocaine are not controlled substances, citing prior precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was charged with unlawful sale of hashish, unlawful possession of hashish, and possession of cocaine. The sale charge was dismissed. A jury foun…
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 Lawful Entry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against for (1) unlawful sale of hashish, (2) unlawful possession of hashish, and (3) possession of controlled substance, to wit: cocaine. Count one of the above information having been dismissed, the defendant was tried by jury and found guilty on counts two and three. The trial judge then pronounced consecutive sentences of three years and five years imprisonment on counts two and three respectively. This appeal followed.
We find appellant’s first contention that hashish and cocairie are not listed as controlled substances to be devoid of merit in that this same issue previously has been •determined by this court. See Amato v. State, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 609 and Fla.Stat. § 893.03 F.S.A. Appellant secondly contends the trial court committed reversible error in denying defense counsel’s motion to suppress on the grounds that the arresting officers failed to comply with Fla.Stat. § 901.19.1
We find that Fla.Stat. § 901.19 is inapplicable to the instant case as the record reflects that the arresting officers after identifying themselves entered the premises in question with the permission of the occupants and, therefore, no forcible entry was made by the police. Thus, this point of appellant must fail.
For his third point on appeal, defendant-appellant urges as reversible error the failure of the state to produce the confidential informant for pretrial discovery and testimony at trial.
With respect thereto, we note that the state, pursuant to order of court, furnished the defense with the name and last known address of the confidential informant. Further, the record is replete with evidence of the reasonable efforts by the prosecution to locate the informant and, thus, we conclude this point is not well taken.
We also considered defendant’s final contention that the court erred in imposing two separate sentences for possession of controlled substances which occurred the same time and conclude that it is lacking in merit. See Jenkins v. Wainwright, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 477.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “901.19 Right of officer to break into building
“(1) If a peace officer fails to gain admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose in order to make an arrest either by a warrant or when authorized to make an arrest for a felony without, a warrant, he may use all necessary and reasonable • force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.”
* * * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…al to dismiss a proceeding because of the failure of a witness subpoenaed by the defendant to appear for discovery purposes. See State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); State v. DeVille, 258 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Lewis v. State, 320 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); State v. Banks, 349 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). On this point we have not overlooked the rather oblique references to threats from the “vice squad” relate…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)