Hassoun v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hassoun v. State

599 So. 2d 215, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5253, 1992 WL 98838

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1429

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 215 (Hassoun 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

Hassoun v. State, 599 So. 2d 215, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5253, 1992 WL 98838 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

We affirm the defendant’s judgment. Appellant was charged with the unlawful act of purchase of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e) and (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989). Hence, his argument that he thought he was purchasing one controlled substance — marijuana— when he actually purchased another controlled substance — cocaine—is immaterial. Knowledge of the particular nature of the controlled substance is not a required element of a charge of purchase under section 893.13(l)(e) or (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes. See State v. Ryan, 413 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th [216]*216DCA), rev. denied, 421 So.2d 518 (Fla.1982).

However, as both parties request, we remand as to his sentence with direction to correct the written sentence to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the three year minimum mandatory sentence. The written sentence reflects a sentence of three and one-half years. The trial court’s written sentence must conform with its oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. McBee v. State, 581 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Kord v. State, 508 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs. STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur specially with opinions.

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

PER CURIAM

We affirm the defendant’s judgment. Appellant was charged with the unlawful act of purchase of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e) and (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989). Hence, his argument that he thought he was purchasing one controlled substance — marijuana— when he actually purchased another controlled substance — cocaine—is immaterial. Knowledge of the particular nature of the controlled substance is not a required element of a charge of purchase under section 893.13(l)(e) or (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes. See State v. Ryan, 413 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th [216]*216DCA), rev. denied, 421 So.2d 518 (Fla.1982).

However, as both parties request, we remand as to his sentence with direction to correct the written sentence to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the three year minimum mandatory sentence. The written sentence reflects a sentence of three and one-half years. The trial court’s written sentence must conform with its oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. McBee v. State, 581 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Kord v. State, 508 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs. STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur specially with opinions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 215, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5253, 1992 WL 98838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hassoun-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack