J.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.S. v. State

138 So. 3d 504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-2989

StatusPublished

This text of 138 So. 3d 504 (J.S. 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

J.S. v. State, 138 So. 3d 504 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with and adjudicated delinquent of three counts of possessing with intent to transmit or show obscene matter, in violation of section 847.011(l)(a) & (c), Florida Statutes (2012). He argues on appeal that his adjudication on all three counts violates double jeopardy because he only possessed one obscene video. The State counters that the three separate adjudications should be affirmed because Appellant displayed the video on three occasions to three different individuals. We agree with Appellant. The possession of the obscene material was the unit of prosecution. Because possession is a continuing crime, only one adjudication can be sustained. Lints v. State, 643 So.2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This is not a case where Appellant possessed the same item on several occasions due to a break or interruption, such as in Bailey v. State, 637 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., and EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with and adjudicated delinquent of three counts of possessing with intent to transmit or show obscene matter, in violation of section 847.011(l)(a) & (c), Florida Statutes (2012). He argues on appeal that his adjudication on all three counts violates double jeopardy because he only possessed one obscene video. The State counters that the three separate adjudications should be affirmed because Appellant displayed the video on three occasions to three different individuals. We agree with Appellant. The possession of the obscene material was the unit of prosecution. Because possession is a continuing crime, only one adjudication can be sustained. Lints v. State, 643 So.2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This is not a case where Appellant possessed the same item on several occasions due to a break or interruption, such as in Bailey v. State, 637 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., and EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/js-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack