Simpson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simpson v. State

688 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1862, 1997 WL 91377

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3690

StatusPublished

This text of 688 So. 2d 467 (Simpson 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

Simpson v. State, 688 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1862, 1997 WL 91377 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for possession of marijuana in excess of twenty grams, and possession of drug paraphernalia. There was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

We remand for correction of Simpson’s guideline scoresheet, to show the possession of marijuana was a level one offense, rather than a level three offense, and to adjust the guideline points accordingly. We affirm appellant’s sentence, however, as it was pursuant to a plea agreement upon the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. Accordingly, the difference in points would not have affected the sentence. See Burrows v. State, 649 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for possession of marijuana in excess of twenty grams, and possession of drug paraphernalia. There was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

We remand for correction of Simpson’s guideline scoresheet, to show the possession of marijuana was a level one offense, rather than a level three offense, and to adjust the guideline points accordingly. We affirm appellant’s sentence, however, as it was pursuant to a plea agreement upon the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. Accordingly, the difference in points would not have affected the sentence. See Burrows v. State, 649 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1862, 1997 WL 91377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack