Parker v. State, M--368
| Decision Date | 30 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. M--368,M--368 |
| Citation | 237 So.2d 253 |
| Parties | Eddie PARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, defendant below, was informed against in the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, in a three count information charging as follows:
First count, that on August 19, 1969 the defendant 'did unlawfully and feloniously possess, have under his control, or sell a narcotic drug,' to wit marijuana, in violation of section 398.03 F.S.
Second count: that on the same date he did 'possess or control, actual or constructive, a barbiturate, to wit: four orange capsules of seconal,' in violation of section 404.02 F.S. and Third count: that he did on the same date 'deliver or cause to be delivered a barbiturate, to wit: four capsules of seconal.'
This case was consolidated for trial with another case against the same defendant involving delivery of LSD at or about the time, but that case was not appealed and is not under consideration by this court, but is mentioned here only because the trial court necessarily referred to it in his sentencing of the defendant on the guilty verdicts rendered in this case.
After the State had rested its case, the defendant moved the court to require the State to elect between the several charges made against the defendant (which three charges are stated supra) on the ground that they all arose from a single criminal transaction, and also requested the court to charge the jury, in substance, to the same effect: namely, 'that if the evidence shows that a single criminal transaction has occurred but has been charged in separate counts, you cannot properly convict the defendant of but one offense.'
The trial court, after hearing argument of counsel, denied the motion and refused to give the requested instruction to the jury. Subsequent to sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was also denied. A motion in arrest of judgment was also denied.
All of the court's rulings on the matters related supra were assigned as error, but the points raised on appeal are confined basically to the principle of law as to whether in a single transaction, marijuana and seconal are sold and delivered, is it proper to enter judgment and impose sentence for three separate offenses: namely, (1) possession and sale of marijuana in violation of F.S. section 398.03 and chapter 398, F.S.A., (2) unlawful possession of a barbiturate, seconal in violation of F.S. section 404.02(4), F.S.A. and F.S. 1967 chapter 404, F.S.A. and whether a count in an information could charge an offense in the alternative in the same language used in the statute in question, (3) unlawful and felonious delivery of a barbiturate, seconal in violation of F.S. 1967, section 404.02 and chapter 404, F.S.A.
The defendant's counsel contends that there was only one crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zaccagnini
...People v. Schroeder, 264 Cal.App.2d 217, 70 Cal.Rptr. 491 (1968); State v. Adams, 364 A.2d 1237 (Del.Super.1976); Parker v. State, 237 So.2d 253 (Fla.App.1970); State v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Meadors, 177 Mont. 100, 580 P.2d 903 (1978); White v. State, 568 P.2d 329 ......
-
Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
...intermediate appellate courts have repeatedly come to the same conclusion. Thus, for example, in Parker v. State, 237 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970), the First District Court of Appeal upheld a three-count conviction for possession of marijuana, possession of a barbiturate, and d......
-
Jenkins v. Wainwright
...It is the respondent's position that the trial court's action in imposing two consecutive sentences is sustained by Parker v. State, 237 So.2d 253 (Fla.App.1st 1970), which conflicts with the above-cited decisions of the Fourth and Second District Courts. In that case the defendant, Parker,......
-
Orange v. State, 75--1175
...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 App......