Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

581 So. 2d 1305

581 So.2d 1305

16 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 487

State v. James

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 11, 1991

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1991-07-11

Relies on 577 So. 2d 939 - State v. McCloud · 561 So. 2d 314 - VAA v. State · State v. VAA

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-07-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 642 So. 2d 730 - Armstrong v. State (1994), State v. Ball (1995)

1 federal appellate · 167 state decisions

1580199120002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The state of Florida seeks review of James v. State, 573 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), in which the district court affirmed James’ conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine, but vacated James’ conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine on the authority of V.A.A. v. State, 561 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved in *1306part, quashed in part, 577 So.2d 941 (Fla.1991). The district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

WHEN A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION IS ALLEGED BASED ON THE CRIMES OF SALE AND POSSESSION (OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL) OF THE SAME QUANTUM OF CONTRABAND AND THE CRIMES OCCURRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION 775.021, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), IS IT IMPROPER TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE FOR BOTH CRIMES?

¶2James, 573 So.2d at 1025. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

¶3We answered this question in the negative in State v. McCloud, 577 So.2d 939 (Fla.1991), and State v. V.A.A., 577 So.2d 941 (Fla.1991). In accordance with those decisions, we quash that part of the district court’s decision vacating James’ conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶4It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
/581/so2d/1305 · .json · Public domain