Arbuckle v. State
This text of 379 So. 2d 134 (Arbuckle v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Robert R. Arbuckle appeals his convictions of criminal conspiracy to possess more [135]*135than one hundred pounds of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, possession of more than one hundred pounds of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, and importation of a controlled substance. §§ 777.04(3), 893.-13(l)(a)2, 893.13(l)(d), Fla.Stat. (1977). After reviewing the record, examining the briefs and hearing oral argument, we have concluded that Arbuckle has not demonstrated any reversible error in respect to his convictions.
We do, however, find error in the sentence imposed. The trial judge, apparently viewing the three offenses as a single transaction, pronounced a general sentence of fifteen years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine.1 Arbuckle’s offenses occurred in 1978 subsequent to the enactment of Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1977), which mandated a separate sentence for each criminal offense. The trial court, therefore, should have imposed a separate sentence for each criminal violation. Fundak v. State, 362 So.2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
We affirm Arbuekle’s convictions, but vacate the sentence imposed. We remand, and direct the trial court to impose separate sentences for each offense. The appellant is entitled to be present at resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
379 So. 2d 134, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbuckle-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.