Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

549 So. 2d 1166

549 So.2d 1166

14 Fla.L.Weekly 2378

Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 11, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-10-11

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1996

3 state decisions

Relies on 547 So. 2d 1201 - Rhodes v. State · 542 So. 2d 1330 - In re Amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 · 416 So. 2d 485 - Asmer v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-10-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The state concedes that appellant’s convictions for both sale and delivery of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine violated double jeopardy prohibitions. In light of Spadaro v. State, 539 So.2d 1169 (Fla.2d DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 547 So.2d 1211 (Fla.1989) and Garrison v. State, 530 So.2d 365 (Fla.5th DCA 1988) (for double jeopardy purposes, sale and delivery is a lesser included offense of trafficking), we vacate appellant’s sale and delivery of cocaine conviction. But we affirm appellant’s trafficking in cocaine conviction on the authority of Asmer v. State, 416 So.2d 485 (Fla.4th DCA 1982), and appellant’s possession of cocaine conviction on the authority of Pelaez v. State, 541 So.2d 1211 (Fla.2d DCA 1988) review denied, 542 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1989), and remand for resentencing after proceedings consistent herewith.

¶2AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

DELL, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
/549/so2d/1166 · .json · Public domain