JASON NORMAN MCFEE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed drug trafficking convictions but reversed the conviction for simple possession of cannabis as duplicative of the possession-with-intent-to-sell conviction, violating double jeopardy.
A defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for both possession with intent to sell or deliver and simple possession of the same cannabis because such dual convictions violate double jeopardy.
[1] Convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver and simple possession of the same controlled substance violate double jeopardy and cannot stand together.
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 intelligenceJason McFee was convicted following a jury trial of multiple drug trafficking offenses including trafficking in methamphetamine, MDMA, heroin, and hyd…
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 Trafficking In Hydrocodone cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jason McFee was convicted and sentenced, following a jury trial, for trafficking in 28 grams or more of methamphetamine, trafficking in 10 grams or more of MDMA, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, trafficking in 28 grams or more of heroin, trafficking in 4 grams or more of hydrocodone, two counts of possession of a controlled substance (methadone and morphine), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He challenges the denial of a motion to suppress and the conviction for possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, we turn to McFee’s argument that he cannot be convicted and sentenced for both possession with intent to sell or deliver and simple possession of the same cannabis. The State concedes, and we agree that convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver cannabis and simple possession of the same cannabis violate double jeopardy. Crites v. State, 959 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Accordingly, we set aside the conviction for possession of cannabis (count 5) and affirm the conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver cannabis (count 4). We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
PLEUS, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.