HOARDES v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

HOARDES v. State

1 So. 3d 377, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 667, 2009 WL 211905

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 30, 2009·No. 1D07-0356·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis as a lesser included offense of the sale of cannabis. See State v. McCloud, 577 So.2d 939, 941 (Fla.1991). We, therefore, reverse appellant’s conviction as to count I. In all other respects, we affirm.

WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis as a lesser included offense of the sale of cannabis. See State v. McCloud, 577 So.2d 939, 941 (Fla.1991). We, therefore, reverse appellant’s conviction as to count I. In all other respects, we affirm.

WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

HOARDES v. State, 1 So. 3d 377, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 667, 2009 WL 211905 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

1 So. 3d 377 (HOARDES v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related