C.L.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.L.C. v. State

868 So. 2d 685, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 2004 WL 690017

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-2613

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 868 So. 2d 685 (C.L.C. 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.

Bluebook

C.L.C. v. State, 868 So. 2d 685, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 2004 WL 690017 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

C.L.C., a juvenile, was found guilty of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and of the lesser included charge of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He was adjudicated delinquent and committed con[686]*686currently to a Level Eight program for each of the two offenses. We affirm the adjudication of guilt with respect to the possession with intent to sell, there being no error shown. We reverse, however, with respect to the simple possession charge. As the crime of possession of marijuana contains no element not found within the crime of possession with intent to sell, we conclude that the adjudication and sentence on the simple possession charge must be vacated, as violative of the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997). The State agrees.

Accordingly, we vacate the adjudication and sentence for the simple possession of marijuana. We affirm the adjudication and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to sell.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

SHARP, W., THOMPSON and ■ MONACO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

C.L.C., a juvenile, was found guilty of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and of the lesser included charge of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He was adjudicated delinquent and committed con[686]*686currently to a Level Eight program for each of the two offenses. We affirm the adjudication of guilt with respect to the possession with intent to sell, there being no error shown. We reverse, however, with respect to the simple possession charge. As the crime of possession of marijuana contains no element not found within the crime of possession with intent to sell, we conclude that the adjudication and sentence on the simple possession charge must be vacated, as violative of the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997). The State agrees.

Accordingly, we vacate the adjudication and sentence for the simple possession of marijuana. We affirm the adjudication and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to sell.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

SHARP, W., THOMPSON and ■ MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 So. 2d 685, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 2004 WL 690017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clc-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack