Manger v. State

758 So. 2d 713, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 2000 WL 294851
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Manger v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10345
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 22, 2000·No. No. 4D99-1839·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate fundamental error in his plea of no contest for trafficking in hydrocodone. He misplaces his reliance on Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999). Here, the state charged appellant with trafficking in hy-drocodone because he had in his possession hydrocodone in an amount of 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms contrary to sections 893.135(l)(c)l c and 893.03(2)(a)l j, Florida Statutes (1997). According to the arrest affidavit, “[e]ach Hydrocodone pill contained] .7 grams of Hydrocodone, a Schedule II Narcotic, for a total weight of 70 grams of Hydrocodone.” See §§ 893.03(2)(a)l j, 893.03(3)(c)3, Fla. Stat. (1997). Since each pill contained more than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit, the state correctly classified the substance as a Schedule II narcotic, aggregated the total amount in appellant’s possession, and charged him with trafficking in hydrocodone. See id.; Hayes, 750 So.2d at 2.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ. concur.

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

Manger v. State, 758 So. 2d 713, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 2000 WL 294851 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

758 So. 2d 713 (Manger v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hayes v. State
750 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)