Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/O.S. v. State

O.S. v. State

100 So. 3d 230, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18879, 2012 WL 5349851
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 31, 2012
DocketNo. 3D11-3310
StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 3d 230 (O.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
O.S. v. State, 100 So. 3d 230, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18879, 2012 WL 5349851 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree that O.S.’s adjudications for violating sections 893.13(6)(b) and 893.147(1) of the Florida Statutes (2011) must be affirmed. First, his argument that his adjudications for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia should be reversed, because a lack of a mens rea requirement in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011), renders the possession statutes unconstitutional, has recently been rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. See State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012). Second, sufficient evidence was adduced at the adjudicatory hearing to support the adjudications at issue.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Adkins
96 So. 3d 412 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 So. 3d 230, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18879, 2012 WL 5349851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/os-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.