State v. Nellums

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Nellums

614 So. 2d 676, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2421, 1993 WL 55630

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1993

DocketNo. 92-612

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 676 (State v. Nellums) 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

State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2421, 1993 WL 55630 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Because the undisputed facts in this case show that appellee, charged with possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), possessed the same in the presence of the owner for the sole purpose of inspecting it, the trial court properly entered an order dismissing the felony charge of possession of cannabis and transferring the case to county court for prosecution of the misdemeanor offense of attempted possession of cannabis. Campbell v. State, 577 So.2d 932 (Fla.1991); Roberts v. State, 505 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Garces v. State, 485 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

If we were to apply the 1992 amendment to Section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, which redefined the term “possession” to include temporary possession for the purpose of verification, retroactively to an offense alleged to have been committed before the statute’s enactment, such application would run afoul of the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. See State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989); Heath v. State, 532 So.2d 9 [677]*677(Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (on rehearing), review denied, 541 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Because the undisputed facts in this case show that appellee, charged with possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), possessed the same in the presence of the owner for the sole purpose of inspecting it, the trial court properly entered an order dismissing the felony charge of possession of cannabis and transferring the case to county court for prosecution of the misdemeanor offense of attempted possession of cannabis. Campbell v. State, 577 So.2d 932 (Fla.1991); Roberts v. State, 505 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Garces v. State, 485 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

If we were to apply the 1992 amendment to Section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, which redefined the term “possession” to include temporary possession for the purpose of verification, retroactively to an offense alleged to have been committed before the statute’s enactment, such application would run afoul of the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. See State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989); Heath v. State, 532 So.2d 9 [677]*677(Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (on rehearing), review denied, 541 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 676, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2421, 1993 WL 55630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nellums-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack