RICHARD WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that concurrent sentences for two crimes arising from a single transaction must be set aside for one count.
Appellant was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivering a controlled substance during a single episode. He …
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 Criminal Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivering a controlled substance. Both crimes were charged under Section 893.-13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1975). Both crimes occurred during a single episode in which the appellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent.
Appellant received a fifteen year sentence on count I and a five year concurrent sentence on count II. The sentence on count II must be set aside because both of the crimes were a facet of the same transaction. Orange v. State, 334 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The state’s reliance upon Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), is misplaced because this new statute only mandates separate sentencing where a person has committed an act in the course of one criminal transaction which constitutes a violation of two or more criminal statutes.
Appellant’s second point is without merit.
The judgments and the sentence on count I are affirmed. The sentence on count II is hereby set aside.
GRIMES, A. C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 380 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…that Section 775.021, Florida Statutes(1979)1 requires there to be a violation of two separate statutes before he can be held guilty of separate offenses. Here defendant was charged under a single statute, Section 794.011(4)(b). Williams v. State, 349 So. 2d 800, (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), involved possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and delivery of a controlled substance. The court held that Count II would be set aside because both crimes were a facet of the same transaction. See also Ora…
-
Walton v. State, 360 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…oncealed firearm because the factual basis developed for appellant’s plea demonstrates that the crimes of carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a concealed firearm while committing a felony were facets of the same transaction. Williams v. State, 349 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Section 775.021(4),2 Florida Statutes (1977), which limits the single transaction rule, does not change this result since carrying a concealed firearm is a necessarily lesser included offense of carrying a concealed firearm while…
-
Rushing v. State, 355 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…nt to be served concurrently. In this appeal appellant argues that one of his two sentences must be set aside because both crimes occurred during a single episode in which appellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent, citing Williams v. State, 349 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We agree. When a defendant is convicted of two crimes in a single transaction, and each of the crimes is a facet of the same transaction, a sentence should be imposed for only the highest crime charged. Orange v. State, 334 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Orange v. State, 334 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)