ALSHON BRADSHAW, 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.
Alshon Bradshaw was convicted of possession and trafficking of a controlled substance following a jury trial. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trafficking conviction but vacated the possession conviction as duplicative under double jeopardy principles, and rejected challenges regarding impeachment evidence and statutory constitutionality.
The court found any error in admitting the photographs was harmless. Pursuant to Gibbs v. State, the possession and trafficking convictions for the same heroin violate double jeopardy and cannot both stand. The trafficking statute does not violate the single-subject rule, as affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in Franklin v. State.
[1] A trial court's admission of impeachment evidence, even if previously excluded as a remedy for a discovery violation, may be deemed harmless error.
[2] Convictions and sentences for both possession and trafficking of the same controlled substance violate double jeopardy.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“under Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla.1997), the convictions and sentences for both possession and trafficking in the same heroin violate double jeopardy and cannot stand”
Establishes the double jeopardy basis for vacating the possession conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradshaw was charged with possession of a controlled substance, conspiracy to traffic an illegal drug, and trafficking an illegal drug. After a jury t…
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 Richardson Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*332] PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance; conspiracy to traffic an illegal drug; and trafficking an illegal drug. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and trafficking an illegal drug. He was acquitted of conspiracy to traffic an illegal drug. Appellant was sentenced to five years in prison for the possession conviction and to a concurrent fifteen year minimum mandatory sentence for the trafficking conviction.
On appeal, the appellant first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain photographs as impeachment evidence during the state’s rebuttal; the trial court had excluded the photographs earlier as a remedy for the State’s Richardson1 violation. Appellant argues that the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that Richardson protections are also fully applicable to impeachment evidence. See Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125, 127 (Fla.1986). On the record before us, however, we conclude that any error in this regard was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1136 (Fla.1986).
The appellant next asserts, and the State properly concedes, that under Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla.1997), the convictions and sentences for both possession and trafficking in the same heroin violate double jeopardy and cannot stand. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence for simple possession and remand with instructions to dismiss this count.
Finally, the appellant argues that his sentence for the trafficking count cannot stand because the statute under which it was imposed, section 893.135, Florida Statutes, as amended by chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional for violating the single-subject rule. See Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We previously reached a contrary conclusion in State v. Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and certified conflict with Taylor. In Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.2004), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed our decision that there was no constitutional impairment to this statute. Accordingly, we find no merit to the appellant’s final argument on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.
. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gende v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
- Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2004)
- Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997)