Aylin v. State, JJ-130
| Decision Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. JJ-130,JJ-130 |
| Citation | 362 So.2d 435 |
| Parties | William N. AYLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James P. Judkins, of Davis & Judkins, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Having properly reserved the right to do so, Aylin appeals from a circuit court judgment convicting him, after a plea of nolo contendere, on a charge that he and others
did agree, conspire, combine and confederate each one with the others to commit the felony of possession of in excess of 100 pounds of CANNABIS and . . . WILLIAM NORMAN AYLIN did, in the County of Leon, State of Florida, do an act in furtherance of said conspiracy in that on October 14, 1976, WILLIAM NORMAN AYLIN did depart Tallahassee Municipal Airport enroute to possess in excess of 100 pounds of CANNABIS and to proceed to Stella Maris, Long Island, Bahamas . . . .
We need address only one of the several issues presented. We find, as appellant contends, that the conspiracy charged is not a felony of the third degree, as found by the trial court. Rather, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree. The speedy trial time proscribed by Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Cr.P., was therefore 90 days, not 180 days. Appellant was not brought to trial within 90 days and his motion for discharge should have been granted.
Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part:
(1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 500, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. Any person who violates this provision with respect to:
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c), (3), or (4) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084; except that the sale, delivery, or possession of in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis as controlled in s. 893.03(1) (c) shall constitute a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Section 893.13(1)(e) provides:
(e) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained . . . . Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The question of statutory construction is whether, by Section 893.13(1)(a)2, the legislature made simple possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis a second degree felony or, instead, made possession of that quantity punishable as a second degree felony only when it was sold, manufactured, delivered, or possessed with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...certified to this Court as being in direct conflict with an earlier decision of a different district court of appeal, Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. Petitioner, Walter A. Parker, Jr., was charged by information with, am......
-
State v. Brady
...be secure in property. On the second point considered, the principal case again is from the First District, this time Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Aylin did indeed hold as a matter of statutory construction that the Legislature had "subsumed" the new 100 pound provisio......
-
State v. Brady
...1980)), which expressly and directly conflicts with a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA (1978)). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Respondents, Frank J. Brady, Philip M. Eckard, and Ronald B. Elliot, were arres......
-
Chesnut v. State
...1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)), which directly conflicts with decisions of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)), and the District Court of Appeal, Second District (Beasley v. State, 382 So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). We have jurisdiction......