Paccione v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paccione v. State

676 So. 2d 529, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 1996 WL 397267

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2768

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 529 (Paccione 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

Paccione v. State, 676 So. 2d 529, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 1996 WL 397267 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, Judge.

James Paccione pled nolo contendere to the charges of possession of marijuana with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and simple possession of the same marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his previously-filed motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy violations. We affirm appellant’s convictions on the authority of Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As we did in Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we find it necessary to certify to the supreme court the following as a question of great public importance:

May a person be separately convicted and punished for possession of marijuana with [530]*530intent to sell and simple possession of the same quantity of marijuana?

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.

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

SHAHOOD, Judge.

James Paccione pled nolo contendere to the charges of possession of marijuana with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and simple possession of the same marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his previously-filed motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy violations. We affirm appellant’s convictions on the authority of Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As we did in Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we find it necessary to certify to the supreme court the following as a question of great public importance:

May a person be separately convicted and punished for possession of marijuana with [530]*530intent to sell and simple possession of the same quantity of marijuana?

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 529, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 1996 WL 397267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paccione-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack