Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 So. 3d 230

O.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 31, 2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2012-10-31

Relies on 96 So. 3d 412 - State v. Adkins

Decided 2012-10-31

PER CURIAM.

¶1We 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.

¶2Affirmed.

/100/so3d/230 · .json · Public domain