Foster v. State

157 So. 3d 524, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2030, 2015 WL 641113
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Foster v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 106 So. 3d 6
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 16, 2015·No. No. 1D13-4703·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Christian Foster challenges two of his four convictions in this direct criminal appeal. We find no merit in his first argument and affirm without comment. His second argument — that his convictions for trafficking and possession of methamphetamine violated double jeopardy because they were both based on the possession of the same meth oil — is correct and conceded by the State. We reverse and vacate the lesser offense. See Mullins v. State, 74 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Melton v. State, 73 So.3d 296, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Foster’s convictions and sentences on Counts I, III, and IV, and reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate his conviction and sentence on Count II.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

Foster v. State, 157 So. 3d 524, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2030, 2015 WL 641113 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

157 So. 3d 524 (Foster v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mullins v. State
74 So. 3d 146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Melton v. State
73 So. 3d 296 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)