HILLARD JERRY LONDON, 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 possession of cannabis and bringing cannabis to a penal institution are separate offenses, and a prior conviction for possession does not bar a subsequent prosecution for bringing it to the institution.
[1] Double jeopardy bars a second prosecution only if it is for the same offense, not merely for the same acts or circumstances.
[2] A prior conviction for possession of a substance does not bar a subsequent prosecution for unlawfully bringing that substance onto the grounds of a penal institution.
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted of unlawfully bringing cannabis onto the grounds of a penal institution. He had a prior conviction for possession of the same …
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 Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant seeks review of his conviction for unlawfully bringing cannabis upon the grounds of a penal institution in violation of Section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1975). The issue is whether the defendant was placed in double jeopardy because of his previous conviction for possession of the same cannabis in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975).
In determining whether a plea of double jeopardy can be sustained the test is whether the second prosecution places the defendant twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and not whether he has been tried before upon the same acts, circumstances or situation, the facts of which may sustain a conviction for a separate offense. State v. Bowden, 154 Fla. 511, 18 So. 2d 478 (1944). To constitute double jeopardy, it is not enough that the second prosecution arises out of the same facts as the first, but the second prosecution must also be for the same offense. State v. Shaw, 219 So. 2d 49 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). However, when a defendant is placed in jeopardy for a lesser degree of an offense and is thereafter charged with a higher degree of the same offense, he has been placed in double jeopardy and the subsequent prosecution is barred. Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. 345 (1929); State ex rel. Landis v. Lewis, 118 Fla. 910, 160 So. 485 (1935); Greene v. City of Gulfport, 103 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1958).
The defendant contends that possession of marijuana is a lesser included offense or lesser degree of the offense of bringing cannabis upon the grounds of a penal institution and therefore he had been placed in double jeopardy. We reject this contention and hold that each is a separate offense. Defendant’s prior conviction under Section 893.13 does not bar a subsequent prosecution under Section 944.47 based upon the same facts. Compare, State v. Bowden, supra, State v. Shaw, supra, and State v. Stiefel, 256 So. 2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1972), State v. Heisterman, 343 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1977).
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rubin Bowden, 154 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1944)
- Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184 (Fla. 1929)
- State v. Amos Lewis, 118 Fla. 910 (Fla. 1935)
- Greene v. City OF Gulfport, 103 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Shaw, 219 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- State v. Stiefel, 256 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State v. Heisterman, 343 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1977)