GARNETT MELTON, 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.
Garnett Melton was convicted of both sale/possession with intent to sell methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine based on the same underlying conduct. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his suppression motion but reversed one conviction as a double jeopardy violation, holding that conviction under both statutes for identical conduct violates the Fifth Amendment.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding no error. However, the court held that Melton could not be convicted under both statutes when the underlying conduct (possession) was identical for both offenses, as this violates double jeopardy principles under the Fifth Amendment.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both possession with intent to sell and trafficking in a controlled substance when the underlying conduct for both offenses is the same…
[2] A conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession with intent to sell the same substance, where the trafficking offense is based on possession, violat…
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“if prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes [sections 893.13 and 893.135], a conviction under more than one of the statutes is a violation of double jeopardy principles.”
Establishes the core holding that dual convictions for identical conduct violate double jeopardy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Garnett Melton was charged with and convicted of two methamphetamine offenses: (1) sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Garnett Melton, argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that his convictions and sentences for the sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver methamphetamine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, (Count 1) and trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes, (Count 2) violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. We find no error with the trial court’s ruling on Appellant’s motion to suppress. We do, however, agree that Appellant could not be convicted on Counts 1 and 2 when the underlying conduct, i.e., possession, was the same for both offenses. See Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206, 1210 (Fla.1997) (“[I]f prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes [sections 893.13 and 893.135], a conviction under more than one of the statutes is a violation of double jeopardy principles.”); Williamson v. State, 859 So.2d 553, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“We conclude that the defendant’s convictions for both trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment .... ”); see also Howard v. State, 916 So.2d 824, 824-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that the appellant could not be convicted and sentenced for possession of methamphetamine and trafficking and noting that “[w]here, as here, the trafficking, offense is based on possession, the conduct element is the same for both trafficking and possession”). We reject the State’s argument that the language “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13” found in section 893.135 requires a different result.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND with instructions that the trial court vacate Appellant’s conviction on Count 1.
PADOVANO and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mullins v. State, 74 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
-
Palmer v. State, 180 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
-
Foster v. State, 157 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Masker, 859 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Howard v. State, 916 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)