Nicholson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nicholson v. State

62 So. 3d 703, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2011 WL 2305625

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2011

Docket1D09-4497

StatusPublished

This text of 62 So. 3d 703 (Nicholson 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

Nicholson v. State, 62 So. 3d 703, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2011 WL 2305625 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges criminal convictions which were obtained in a joint trial with a codefendant. In this appeal, the appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for trafficking in hydrocodone, and for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The appellant also contends that the use of a jury instruction with an “and/or” conjunction between his name and the code-fendant’s name was fundamental error. These same issues were addressed by this court in the codefendant’s separate appeal in Nicholson v. State, 38 So.3d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), where the codefendant’s trafficking conviction was reversed, and his possession of cocaine and paraphernalia convictions were affirmed. Nicholson is controlling authority as to these matters, and the appellant’s conviction for trafficking is likewise reversed, while his convictions for possession of cocaine and paraphernalia are affirmed. In light of the reversal of the trafficking conviction, the appellant’s sentences are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet. See Vroom v. State, 48 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Smith v. State, 687 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges criminal convictions which were obtained in a joint trial with a codefendant. In this appeal, the appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for trafficking in hydrocodone, and for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The appellant also contends that the use of a jury instruction with an “and/or” conjunction between his name and the code-fendant’s name was fundamental error. These same issues were addressed by this court in the codefendant’s separate appeal in Nicholson v. State, 38 So.3d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), where the codefendant’s trafficking conviction was reversed, and his possession of cocaine and paraphernalia convictions were affirmed. Nicholson is controlling authority as to these matters, and the appellant’s conviction for trafficking is likewise reversed, while his convictions for possession of cocaine and paraphernalia are affirmed. In light of the reversal of the trafficking conviction, the appellant’s sentences are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet. See Vroom v. State, 48 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Smith v. State, 687 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 3d 703, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2011 WL 2305625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholson-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack