Machado-De-Morais v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Machado-De-Morais v. State

101 So. 3d 946, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433, 2012 WL 6199956

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-4797

StatusPublished

This text of 101 So. 3d 946 (Machado-De-Morais 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

Machado-De-Morais v. State, 101 So. 3d 946, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433, 2012 WL 6199956 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, FOR A WRITTEN OPINION AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF CONFLICT

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following.

Appellant contends in part that the evidence did not establish that the crimes of conspiracy to purchase cocaine occurred because the evidence showed only that the alleged coconspirator was a seller of cocaine and that appellant was a buyer, and therefore each intended to commit a different criminal offense. We have previously rejected this argument, see Pallin v. State, 965 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and do so again today. We certify conflict with Davis v. State, 95 So.3d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, C.J., LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, FOR A WRITTEN OPINION AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF CONFLICT

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following.

Appellant contends in part that the evidence did not establish that the crimes of conspiracy to purchase cocaine occurred because the evidence showed only that the alleged coconspirator was a seller of cocaine and that appellant was a buyer, and therefore each intended to commit a different criminal offense. We have previously rejected this argument, see Pallin v. State, 965 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and do so again today. We certify conflict with Davis v. State, 95 So.3d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, C.J., LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 3d 946, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433, 2012 WL 6199956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machado-de-morais-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack