SOLOMON HARRIS, 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.
Appellant's conviction for both possession and delivery of heroin in a single transaction was error; only the higher offense (delivery) could be sentenced under pre-statute law, so the possession sentence was set aside.
A defendant convicted of both possession and delivery of heroin in a single transaction may be sentenced only for the higher offense, not both.
[1] When a defendant commits possession and delivery of heroin in a single transaction, sentencing for both offenses violates the rule against multiple punishments for the sa…
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 intelligenceAppellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent in a single transaction and was convicted of both possession and delivery of heroin.…
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 Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and delivery of heroin. Both crimes occurred during a single transaction in which the appellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of these charges and sentenced to five years on each count to be served concurrently.
This sentence was error because the appellant could only be sentenced for the higher of the two crimes. Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4 DCA 1978). The appellee has referred us to Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976)1 but we have determined that statute is inapplicable here because the appellant committed the crimes before the effective date of the statute. State v. Munford, 357 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1978).
The convictions and the sentence for the delivery are affirmed but the sentence for the possession is set aside.
ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur. . § 775.021(4), Fla.Stat.(1976): “Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode, and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 372 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…on and delivery of heroin. First we note the appellant was improperly sentenced to prison on both counts which arose from a single transaction which transaction occurred before Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976) became law. Harris v. State, 358 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The primary question on appeal is whether it was error for the trial judge to permit a witness to remain in the courtroom during the trial even though the witness offered substantial testimony concerning the allegations against…
-
Norman v. State, 360 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…nsaction or occurrence as the count charging delivery of heroin. As the defendant was convicted of two facets or phases of the same transaction, he could only be sentenced for the higher of such offenses, that of delivery of heroin. Harris v. State, 358 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed May 16, 1978); Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 265 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Accordingly, since no other reversible error has been demonstrated, the judgments as to the two coun…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Munford, 357 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1978)
- Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)