Milhouse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milhouse v. State

521 So. 2d 380, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1011, 1988 WL 20589

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1988

DocketNo. BS-495

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 380 (Milhouse 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

Milhouse v. State, 521 So. 2d 380, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1011, 1988 WL 20589 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. Appellant was charged below with several offenses of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and either felony or misdemeanor possession of the same cannabis. We agree with appellant that the separate convictions in these cases cannot stand under double jeopardy principles and that the convictions for possession of marijuana in each case must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); accord M.S. v. State, 513 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987).

Appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to entertain appellant’s motion to suppress during the trial. Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982); see also Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969), cited with approval in Savoie.

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. Appellant was charged below with several offenses of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and either felony or misdemeanor possession of the same cannabis. We agree with appellant that the separate convictions in these cases cannot stand under double jeopardy principles and that the convictions for possession of marijuana in each case must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); accord M.S. v. State, 513 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987).

Appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to entertain appellant’s motion to suppress during the trial. Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982); see also Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969), cited with approval in Savoie.

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 380, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1011, 1988 WL 20589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milhouse-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack