C.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.M. v. State

672 So. 2d 632, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4369, 1996 WL 200219

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3600

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 672 So. 2d 632 (C.M. 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.M. v. State, 672 So. 2d 632, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4369, 1996 WL 200219 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

C.M. was adjudicated delinquent based upon his possession and his possession with intent to sell the same quantity of cannabis, as well as his possession of drug paraphernalia. The state concedes that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was violated where C.M. was found to have possessed and possessed with intent to sell the same quantity of cannabis. See Pasley v. State, 625 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because the evidence supports the adjudication as to the possession with intent and paraphernalia offenses, we affirm the order adjudicating C.M. delinquent, but reverse and remand for entry of a corrected disposi-tional order wherein the adjudication for simple possession is vacated.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

MINER and MICKLE, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

C.M. was adjudicated delinquent based upon his possession and his possession with intent to sell the same quantity of cannabis, as well as his possession of drug paraphernalia. The state concedes that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was violated where C.M. was found to have possessed and possessed with intent to sell the same quantity of cannabis. See Pasley v. State, 625 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because the evidence supports the adjudication as to the possession with intent and paraphernalia offenses, we affirm the order adjudicating C.M. delinquent, but reverse and remand for entry of a corrected disposi-tional order wherein the adjudication for simple possession is vacated.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

MINER and MICKLE, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 632, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4369, 1996 WL 200219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cm-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack