Chewning v. State, JJ-3
| Decision Date | 15 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. JJ-3,JJ-3 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 144 |
| Parties | Richard Lynn CHEWNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jon D. Caminez, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant appeals his conviction of conspiracy to possess in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denials of his motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds and his motion to suppress wiretap evidence. We reverse.
Appellant was originally arrested on June 23, 1977, and charged with various counts of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 100 pounds of cannabis. Those charges were subsequently dropped and on November 16, 1977, appellant, along with Neil Ryder and Chuck Mitchell, was charged with possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana and conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 100 pounds of marijuana. Appellant and appellee, the state, entered into a stipulation in which the state agreed to nol pros all charges against appellant except one, which read:
"COUNT III And Harry Morrison as State Attorney for the County of Leon State of Florida further information makes that in the County and State aforesaid RICHARD LYNN CHEWNING, NEIL PHILLIP RYDER AND CHARLES B. MITCHELL on the 3rd, 5th, 11th and 13th days of March 1977 by means of telephonic communications conspire one with the others to commit a felony, to-wit: possession of in excess of 100 lbs. of Cannabis contrary to Sections 893.13(1)(a) 2 and 777.04, Florida Statutes."
The stipulation declared that only two issues were left for the court to determine: (1) whether the wiretap which led to the apprehension of appellant should be suppressed and (2) whether or not appellant engaged in a conspiracy with Mitchell and Ryder to possess more than 100 pounds of cannabis. The stipulation declared that if the conspiracy were found to be for less than 100 pounds, the state agreed that the case should be dismissed for failure of the state to grant appellant a speedy trial since he was not brought to trial within 90 days of the date on which he was taken into custody. The stipulation further declared that if the trial court determined that appellant did engage in a conspiracy for 100 pounds or more, appellant would have the right to plead nolo contendere and appeal the trial court's ruling.
The evidence shows that appellant conspired with Ryder to consummate a deal involving approximately 50 pounds of marijuana and that on another date, appellant conspired with Mitchell to consummate a deal involving approximately 50 to 60 pounds of marijuana. The trial court determined that appellant engaged in a conspiracy for possession of 100 pounds or more of cannabis and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1980); Schueren v. State, 370 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Chewning v. State, 366 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); and Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA Respondent, the state, on the other hand, argues that section 893.13, F......
-
Beasley v. State
...felony punishable by not more than five years in prison. See Schueren v. State, 370 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Chewning v. State, 366 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, we declined to follow our sister court and, accordingly, aff......
-
Reinersman v. State, 79-518
...if more than 100 pounds is involved. The same interpretation has been applied by the First District Court of Appeal. Chewning v. State, 366 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA It is apparent both from Section 893.13(1)(a) and from the text of the sessi......