STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MICHAEL COMBS, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of drug trafficking charges against Combs, who allegedly arranged a meeting between a law enforcement officer and a drug seller without receiving compensation. The Supreme Court's decision in State v. Dent established that active participation in arranging a drug sale, even without compensation, constitutes aiding and abetting the offense.
Yes. Under State v. Dent, active participation in arranging a drug sale violates Florida law and constitutes aiding and abetting, regardless of whether the defendant received compensation. The defendant's conduct need not involve the actual delivery of drugs to incur liability.
[1] A person who actively participates in arranging the sale of narcotics, even without receiving compensation, may be found to have aided and abetted the commission of a cri…
[2] A judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, may violate due process by failing to provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct.
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“The evidence is not in dispute to the effect that respondent took an active part in arranging the sale of narcotics in violation of Florida law. Though he received no compensation from the seller, his active complicity clearly aided and abetted the commission of a criminal offense.”
Establishes that arranging a drug transaction without compensation still constitutes aiding and abetting.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCombs was charged with unlawfully selling a controlled substance. The undisputed facts showed that Combs brought an undercover officer to the Capri Mo…
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 Fair Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellee-defendant Combs was charged by information with the crime of unlawfully selling a controlled substance. By motion to dismiss, Combs contended that his activity in regards to the violation of which he had been accused consisted solely of arranging a meeting between a law enforcement officer and a seller, without payment of any money to him for his part in the transaction. Accordingly, Combs, without any traverse by the state as to his factual allegations, insisted that pursuant to this court’s opinion in Dent v. State, 301 So. 2d 475 (Fla.App.1st 1974), his conduct was not within the prohibition of the offense charged. The trial court correctly followed our decision in Dent and dismissed the information. The state now appeals that dismissal.
In' State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1975), the Supreme Court in quashing this court’s opinion, stated:
“The evidence is not in dispute to the effect that respondent took an active part in arranging the sale of narcotics in violation of Florida law. Though he received no compensation from the seller, his active complicity clearly aided and abetted the commission of a criminal offense. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that the sales would not have occurred but for respondent’s arrangements. Under our decision in State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1971), respondent’s conviction was proper.”
So, it is settled that the trial judge and this court erred in disposing of the issue involved in the respective cases.
The scholarly brief filed by appellee poses a due process constitutional question based upon the rationale of Bouie v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L. Ed.2d 894 (1964). Bouie arose out of a “sit-in” demonstration in a drugstore in Columbia, South Carolina. In reversing the state conviction, the Federal Supreme Court discussed “fair notice” requirements as to penal statutes and concluded that a judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, such as Article I, Section 10, U.S. Constitution.
Here, the admitted facts are that Combs “brought Officer Neal to the Capri Motel on North Main Street where the transaction was consummated between Officer Neal and Mr. Barnard . . . and at no time did the Defendant [Combs] deliver to Officer Neal any drugs whatsoever.” Assuming that the state can prove that Combs took an active part in arranging the sale of narcotics in violation of Florida law, it is our opinion that the rationale of Bouie and other authorities espousing the view therein expressed are not applicable to the instant facts.
Pursuant to State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975), the judgment appealed is REVERSED.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 488 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…defining "sale” for purposes of the Drug Abuse Act the state asserts that case law indicates that an exchange of money need not have been completed to sustain a conviction. Delgado v. State, 229 So. 2d 651 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); see abo State v. Combs, 330 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Those cases do hold that to offer to sell narcotics & a sale of narcotics within the statute proscribing sale of narcotics. However, that statute, section 398.03, was the predecessor statute to section 893.13, the current statut…
-
Lewis v. State, 390 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ind the appeal is without merit. Substantial, competent evidence supports appellant’s conviction of delivery of a controlled substance. State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975); Stephenson v. State, 371 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Combs, 330 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The Public Defender’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1964)
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1975)
- Dent v. State, 301 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)