ROBERT L. MILLS, 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.
Appellant's conviction on three drug possession counts and consecutive sentences were affirmed; the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences despite the single transaction rule because Jenkins v. Wainwright foreclosed that argument.
Consecutive sentences for multiple drug possession counts arising from a single search warrant execution do not violate the single transaction rule under Florida law as established in Jenkins v. Wainwright.
[1] Consecutive sentences for multiple drug possession offenses arising from a single search warrant execution do not violate the single transaction rule under Jenkins v. …
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 intelligenceAppellant was found in possession of cannabis in excess of five grams, barbituric acid, and heroin upon execution of a search warrant. He was tried by…
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 Single Transaction Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged in a three count information with (first count) possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cannibis in excess of five grams and (second count) possession of barbituric acid and (third count) possession of a controlled substance, to wit: heroin. He was tried by jury, found guilty of each count, adjudged guilty by the court and sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count to run consecutively. Motion for new trial was denied and this appeal is from the judgments, sentences and denial of the motion for new trial.
Appellant was found in possession of the above three controlled substances upon the execution of a search warrant. He contends, among other things, that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; that such was in violation of the single transaction rule as set forth in Cone v. State, Fla., 285 So. 2d 12 (1973), and other opinions of the Supreme Court and appellate courts. Unfortunately for appellant, however, his argument is foreclosed by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Jenkins v. Wainwright, Fla., 322 So. 2d 477, opinion filed July 2, 1975. See also Parker v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 237 So. 2d 253 (1970).
We have considered the other points raised by appellant on this appeal and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guillen v. U.S. Attorney General, 910 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2018)…urate. Id. at 253-54. The court rejected the defendant's argument that "there was only one crime committed" when he sold the two drugs, holding that "there were actually three separate and distinct violations of law." Id. at 254. In Mills v. State, 323 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975), the First District affirmed separate sentencing for convictions of possession of marijuana, possession of a barbiturate, and possession of heroin on the same ground. Id. at 595. And in Emmett v. State, 764 So. 2d 675 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)
- Parker v. State, 237 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)