Orange v. State, 75--1175
| Decision Date | 11 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1175,75--1175 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 277 |
| Parties | Henry ORANGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Elliott Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. , and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., PEARSON, J., and CHARLES CARROLL, (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of sale or delivery of a controlled substance in violation of § 893.13(1)(b) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and the crime of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 893.13(1)(e). Separate sentences of three years imprisonment were imposed for the two offenses, with provision for the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appealed, and contends the court erred by imposing two sentences.
Separate sentences can be imposed for crimes committed in a single transaction. Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386 (); Norwood v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 370 (); Slater v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 539 (murder and robbery); Estevez v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So.2d 692 (); Jenkins v. Wainwright, Fla.1975, 322 So.2d 477 ().
However, when a defendant is convicted of two crimes committed in a single transaction and each of the crimes is a Facet of the same transaction, it has been held repeatedly that sentence should be imposed for only one of the crimes, being that of the highest offense charged.
The latter principle was applied in a number of cases involving convictions of two or more offenses in violation of the lottery law which were regarded to be facets of one transaction. See Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 766; Wheeler v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 364; Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677; Wells v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 787.
The principle also has been applied repeatedly in cases similar to the instant case, where defendant has been convicted of sale of a controlled substance and also of possession of the controlled substance, as a result of a transaction where the possession of which the defendant was accused was that which was incident to the delivery of possession made simultaneously or contemporaneously with the sale. Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469; Easton v. State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 294; Martin v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 283; Torres v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 458; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 28; Gonzales v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So.2d 552; Kwasniewski v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So.2d 373. The lone case to the contrary in such situation is Parker v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 253, decided by the First District Court of Appeal. However, in a later case, Martin v. State, supra, the First District Court of Appeal on this point held in accordance with Yost v. State, supra, and other cases cited above dealing with the subject.
In cases decided recently by the Supreme Court (Slater, Estevez, and Jenkins), upholding convictions and sentences for separate offenses committed in one transaction the ofenses did not appear to be, or were held not to be facets of the same transaction. It is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drayton v. State
...improper. See, e. g., Yost v. Wright, 360 So.2d 1309 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Wright v. State, 348 So.2d 633 (Fla.3d DCA); and Orange v. State, 334 So.2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the sentences imposed are reversed, and the cause is remanded for proper sentencing in the light of this Af......
-
Wright v. State
...for the higher of such offenses, to wit: the sale of cocaine. Jackson v. State, 311 So.2d 811 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Orange v. State, 334 So.2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Caivano v. State, 276 So.2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Jackson v. State, 270 So.2d 30 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. State, 268 So......
-
Porter v. State, 76-1162
...which violated appellant's right to a fair trial. Secondly, appellant contends that, pursuant to our decision in Orange v. State, 334 So.2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), the trial court erred in sentencing him to separate sentences for the offenses of sale and possession of the same controlled sub......
-
Bass v. State, 78-2187
...The court held that Count II would be set aside because both crimes were a facet of the same transaction. See also Orange v. State, 334 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In the Williams and Orange cases, supra, the acts were committed together, there was no separation in time. Each crime was pa......