Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 893.13 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 893.13 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 893.13 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 893.13

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 893
DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
View Entire Chapter
893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.—
(1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. A person who violates this provision with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Except as provided in this chapter, a person may not sell or deliver in excess of 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a) or (b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302 or a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, or at any time in, on, or within 1,000 feet of real property comprising a state, county, or municipal park, a community center, or a publicly owned recreational facility. As used in this paragraph, the term “community center” means a facility operated by a nonprofit community-based organization for the provision of recreational, social, or educational services to the public. A person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The defendant must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years unless the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.

This paragraph does not apply to a child care facility unless the owner or operator of the facility posts a sign that is not less than 2 square feet in size with a word legend identifying the facility as a licensed child care facility and that is posted on the property of the child care facility in a conspicuous place where the sign is reasonably visible to the public.

(d) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private college, university, or other postsecondary educational institution. A person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.
(e) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, or within 1,000 feet of a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services or within 1,000 feet of a convenience business as defined in s. 812.171. A person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.
(f) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public housing facility at any time. As used in this section, the term “real property comprising a public housing facility” means real property, as defined in s. 421.03(12), of a public corporation created as a housing authority pursuant to part I of chapter 421. A person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.
(g) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not manufacture methamphetamine or phencyclidine, or possess any listed chemical as defined in s. 893.033 in violation of s. 893.149 and with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or phencyclidine. If a person violates this paragraph and:
1. The commission or attempted commission of the crime occurs in a structure or conveyance where any child younger than 16 years of age is present, the person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the defendant must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 5 calendar years.
2. The commission of the crime causes any child younger than 16 years of age to suffer great bodily harm, the person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the defendant must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 calendar years.
(h) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a mental health facility, as that term is used in chapter 394; a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 which provides substance abuse treatment; a licensed service provider as defined in s. 397.311; a facility providing services that include clinical treatment, intervention, or prevention as described in s. 397.311(27); a recovery residence as defined in s. 397.311; an assisted living facility as defined in chapter 429; or a pain management clinic as defined in s. 458.3265(1)(a)1.c. or s. 459.0137(1)(a)1.c. A person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.
(i) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and must be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, if:
1. The person sells, manufactures, or delivers, or possesses with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, any of the following:
a. Alfentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b)1.;
b. Carfentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b)6.;
c. Fentanyl, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b)9.;
d. Sufentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b)30.;
e. A fentanyl derivative, as described in s. 893.03(1)(a)63.;
f. A controlled substance analog, as described in s. 893.0356, of any substance described in sub-subparagraphs a.-e.; or
g. A mixture containing any substance described in sub-subparagraphs a.-f.; and
2. The substance or mixture listed in subparagraph 1. is in a form that resembles, or is mixed, granulated, absorbed, spray-dried, or aerosolized as or onto, coated on, in whole or in part, or solubilized with or into, a product, when such product or its packaging further has at least one of the following attributes:
a. Resembles the trade dress of a branded food product, consumer food product, or logo food product;
b. Incorporates an actual or fake registered copyright, service mark, or trademark;
c. Resembles candy, cereal, a gummy, a vitamin, or a chewable product, such as a gum or gelatin-based product; or
d. Contains a cartoon character imprint.
(2)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, a person may not purchase, or possess with intent to purchase, a controlled substance. A person who violates this provision with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Except as provided in this chapter, a person may not purchase more than 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a) or (1)(b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who delivers, without consideration, 20 grams or less of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. As used in this subsection, the term “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants of the genus Cannabis or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.
(4) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person 18 years of age or older may not deliver any controlled substance to a person younger than 18 years of age, use or hire a person younger than 18 years of age as an agent or employee in the sale or delivery of such a substance, or use such person to assist in avoiding detection or apprehension for a violation of this chapter. A person who violates this subsection with respect to:
(a) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Imposition of sentence may not be suspended or deferred, and the person so convicted may not be placed on probation.

(5) A person may not bring into this state any controlled substance unless the possession of such controlled substance is authorized by this chapter or unless such person is licensed to do so by the appropriate federal agency. A person who violates this provision with respect to:
(a) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)5. commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (2)(c)10., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(6)(a) A person may not be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. A person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the offense is the possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. As used in this subsection, the term “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants of the genus Cannabis, or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.
(c) Except as provided in this chapter, a person may not possess more than 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), or (2)(b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) If the offense is possession of a controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5), the person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of the laws of this state relating to arrest, a law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to believe is violating the provisions of this chapter relating to possession of cannabis.
(7)(a) A person may not:
1. Distribute or dispense a controlled substance in violation of this chapter.
2. Refuse or fail to make, keep, or furnish any record, notification, order form, statement, invoice, or information required under this chapter.
3. Refuse entry into any premises for any inspection or refuse to allow any inspection authorized by this chapter.
4. Distribute a controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1) or (2) except pursuant to an order form as required by s. 893.06.
5. Keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter.
6. Use to his or her own personal advantage, or reveal, any information obtained in enforcement of this chapter except in a prosecution or administrative hearing for a violation of this chapter.
7. Possess a prescription form unless it has been signed by the practitioner whose name appears printed thereon and completed. This subparagraph does not apply if the person in possession of the form is the practitioner whose name appears printed thereon, an agent or employee of that practitioner, a pharmacist, or a supplier of prescription forms who is authorized by that practitioner to possess those forms.
8. Withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days.
9. Acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.
10. Affix any false or forged label to a package or receptacle containing a controlled substance.
11. Furnish false or fraudulent material information in, or omit any material information from, any report or other document required to be kept or filed under this chapter or any record required to be kept by this chapter.
12. Store anhydrous ammonia in a container that is not approved by the United States Department of Transportation to hold anhydrous ammonia or is not constructed in accordance with sound engineering, agricultural, or commercial practices.
13. With the intent to obtain a controlled substance or combination of controlled substances that are not medically necessary for the person or an amount of a controlled substance or substances that is not medically necessary for the person, obtain or attempt to obtain from a practitioner a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, subterfuge, or concealment of a material fact. For purposes of this subparagraph, a material fact includes whether the person has an existing prescription for a controlled substance issued for the same period of time by another practitioner or as described in subparagraph 8.
(b) A health care practitioner, with the intent to provide a controlled substance or combination of controlled substances that are not medically necessary to his or her patient or an amount of controlled substances that is not medically necessary for his or her patient, may not provide a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, subterfuge, or concealment of a material fact. For purposes of this paragraph, a material fact includes whether the patient has an existing prescription for a controlled substance issued for the same period of time by another practitioner or as described in subparagraph (a)8.
(c) A person who violates subparagraphs (a)1.-6. commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, except that, upon a second or subsequent violation, the person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) A person who violates subparagraphs (a)7.-12. commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(e) A person or health care practitioner who violates the provisions of subparagraph (a)13. or paragraph (b) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if any controlled substance that is the subject of the offense is listed in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV.
(8)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (9), a prescribing practitioner may not:
1. Knowingly assist a patient, other person, or the owner of an animal in obtaining a controlled substance through deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the prescribing practitioner’s professional practice;
2. Employ a trick or scheme in the practice of the prescribing practitioner’s professional practice to assist a patient, other person, or the owner of an animal in obtaining a controlled substance;
3. Knowingly write a prescription for a controlled substance for a fictitious person; or
4. Write a prescription for a controlled substance for a patient, other person, or an animal if the sole purpose of writing such prescription is to provide a monetary benefit to, or obtain a monetary benefit for, the prescribing practitioner.
(b) If the prescribing practitioner wrote a prescription or multiple prescriptions for a controlled substance for the patient, other person, or animal for which there was no medical necessity, or which was in excess of what was medically necessary to treat the patient, other person, or animal, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the prescribing practitioner violated subparagraph (a)1., but may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the prescribing practitioner knowingly assisted a patient, other person, or the owner of an animal to obtain a controlled substance in violation of subparagraph (a)1.
(c) A person who violates paragraph (a) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), if a prescribing practitioner has violated paragraph (a) and received $1,000 or more in payment for writing one or more prescriptions or, in the case of a prescription written for a controlled substance described in s. 893.135, has written one or more prescriptions for a quantity of a controlled substance which, individually or in the aggregate, meets the threshold for the offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under s. 893.135, the violation is reclassified as a felony of the second degree and ranked in level 4 of the Criminal Punishment Code.
(9) The provisions of subsections (1)-(8) are not applicable to the delivery to, or actual or constructive possession for medical or scientific use or purpose only of controlled substances by, persons included in any of the following classes, or the agents or employees of such persons, for use in the usual course of their business or profession or in the performance of their official duties:
(a) Pharmacists.
(b) Practitioners.
(c) Persons who procure controlled substances in good faith and in the course of professional practice only, by or under the supervision of pharmacists or practitioners employed by them, or for the purpose of lawful research, teaching, or testing, and not for resale.
(d) Hospitals that procure controlled substances for lawful administration by practitioners, but only for use by or in the particular hospital.
(e) Officers or employees of state, federal, or local governments acting in their official capacity only, or informers acting under their jurisdiction.
(f) Common carriers.
(g) Manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors.
(h) Law enforcement officers for bona fide law enforcement purposes in the course of an active criminal investigation.
(10) If a person violates any provision of this chapter and the violation results in a serious injury to a state or local law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10, firefighter as defined in s. 633.102, emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, employee of a public utility or an electric utility as defined in s. 366.02, animal control officer as defined in s. 828.27, volunteer firefighter engaged by state or local government, law enforcement officer employed by the Federal Government, or any other local, state, or Federal Government employee injured during the course and scope of his or her employment, the person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the injury sustained results in death or great bodily harm, the person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 13, ch. 73-331; s. 1, ch. 76-200; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 2, ch. 79-1; s. 3, ch. 79-325; s. 5, ch. 80-30; s. 2, ch. 80-70; s. 490, ch. 81-259; s. 2, ch. 82-16; s. 52, ch. 83-215; s. 1, ch. 84-77; s. 5, ch. 85-242; s. 4, ch. 87-243; s. 2, ch. 88-381; s. 4, ch. 89-281; s. 1, ch. 89-524; ss. 1, 6, ch. 90-111; s. 1, ch. 93-59; s. 2, ch. 93-92; s. 1, ch. 93-194; ss. 22, 23, ch. 93-406; s. 2, ch. 96-360; s. 2, ch. 97-1; s. 1, ch. 97-43; s. 1827, ch. 97-102; s. 22, ch. 97-194; s. 106, ch. 97-264; s. 1, ch. 97-269; s. 47, ch. 97-271; s. 1, ch. 98-22; s. 1, ch. 99-154; s. 14, ch. 99-186; s. 3, ch. 2000-320; s. 11, ch. 2002-78; s. 2, ch. 2002-81; s. 3, ch. 2003-10; s. 1, ch. 2003-95; s. 2, ch. 2005-128; s. 108, ch. 2006-197; s. 2, ch. 2006-306; s. 2, ch. 2008-88; s. 6, ch. 2010-113; ss. 3, 4, ch. 2011-73; s. 2, ch. 2011-90; s. 26, ch. 2011-141; s. 2, ch. 2012-23; s. 3, ch. 2013-29; s. 153, ch. 2013-183; s. 2, ch. 2014-159; s. 1, ch. 2014-204; s. 13, ch. 2015-34; s. 5, ch. 2016-105; s. 49, ch. 2017-3; s. 5, ch. 2017-107; s. 12, ch. 2018-13; s. 107, ch. 2019-3; s. 6, ch. 2019-166; s. 124, ch. 2019-167; s. 2, ch. 2022-129; s. 1, ch. 2023-26; s. 2, ch. 2024-20; s. 13, ch. 2024-176.

F.S. 893.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 893.13 on CourtListener

Amendments to 893.13


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S893.13
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

S893.13 (1)(a)1 DRUG FELONY POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WHILE IN PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A MV - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 (1)(a)2 DRUG FELONY POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WHILE IN PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A MV - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 (1)(e) DRUG FELONY POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WHILE IN PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A MV - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 DRUG Possession of a controlled substance (>18 years old - may be Suspended or Revoked) - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 DRUG Possession of a controlled substance [See 322.055 for adults and 322.056 <18] Note 25 - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 (6)(b) DRUG - Less than 20 grams misdemeanor, if no court ordered revocation/suspension - Points on Drivers License: 0
S893.13 (6)(b) DRUG - Less than 20 grams misdemeanor, if court ordered revocation/suspension - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 DRUG Possession of a controlled substance [See 322.055 for adults and 322.056 <18] Note 25 - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
S893.13 (6)(b) DRUG Less than 20 grams misdemeanor, if no court ordered revocation/suspension - Points on Drivers License: 0
S893.13 (6)(b) DRUG Less than 20 grams misdemeanor, if court ordered revocation/suspension - Points on Drivers License: 0 R
Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 893.13
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S893.13 3 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 3 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - DELIVER LT 20 GRAMS CANNABIS W/O CONSIDERATION - M: F
S893.13 10 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 10 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - CTRL SUB VIOL SERIOUS INJ STATE/GOVT EMPLOYEE - F: T
S893.13 10 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RESULT DEATH/GRT BOD HARM STATE/GOVT EMPLOYEE - F: S
S893.13 10 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCH II - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HEROIN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - COCAINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - COCAINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1e1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - M: F
S893.13 12 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7019 - F: T
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - F: T
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: T
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-SELL - REPEALED 97-1 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-IMPORTATION - REPEALED 1997-001 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REPEALED 97-1 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: S
S893.13 12 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7020 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: S
S893.13 12 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REPEALED 1997-001 - F: S
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-SELL - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-SELL - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 12 - DRUGS-SELL - REPEALED 97-1 - F: F
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - BARBITURATE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCH II - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCH III - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD III - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCH III - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCH IV - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB WORSHIP/CONV SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - BARBITURATE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELV CTRL SUB PLACE WORSHIP/CONV STORE SCH III - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - MARIJUANA-PRODUCING - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - MARIJUANA-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1e2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HEROIN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - COCAINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - COCAINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - BARBITURATE-MFG - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE IV - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - BARBITURATE-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE III - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE III - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED III - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE IV - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE IV - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE III - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED IV - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - MARIJUANA-PRODUCING - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a2 - MARIJUANA-SELL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 1a3 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS INTENT SELL/MFG/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 1b - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - DRUGS-SELL - SELL 10 GRAMS+ CTRL SUB 893.03(1)(a)-(b) - F: F
S893.13 1b - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER 10 GRAMS+ CTRL SUB 893.03(1)(a)-(b) - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HEROIN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - COCAINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - COCAINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - BARBITURATE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - BARBITURATE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB SCHOOL/PARK SCHD III - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUBSTANCE SCHOOL/PARK SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - MARIJUANA-PRODUCING - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - MARIJUANA-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1c3 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1c3 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED II - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED II - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED I - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - COCAINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - COCAINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d1 - HEROIN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED INSTITUTE SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - BARBITURATE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED I - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - BARBITURATE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED II - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED II - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD III - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED IV - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED INSTITUTE SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHED IV - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB POSTSEC ED SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB POSTSECONDARY ED INST SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - MARIJUANA-PRODUCING - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - MARIJUANA-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1d3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1d3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT ONLY - M: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HEROIN-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HEROIN-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - COCAINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - COCAINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1f2 - AMPHETAMINE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - BARBITURATE-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - BARBITURATE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD III - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB PUB HOUSING SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - HALLUCINOGEN-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - HALLUCINOGEN-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB PUBLIC HOUSING SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - MARIJUANA-PRODUCING - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - AMPHETAMINE-MFG - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1f2 - MARIJUANA-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1g1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1g1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG METH OR PCP CHILD LT 16 PRESENT - F: F
S893.13 1g1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS CHEM INTENT MFG METH/PCP LT 16 PRESENT - F: F
S893.13 1g2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - CHEM INTENT MFG METH/PCP GRT BOD HARM LT 16YOA - F: F
S893.13 1g2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1g2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - PROD METH/PCP CHILD LT 16 PRESENT GRT BOD HARM - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB ABUSE FACIL SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB ABUSE FACIL SCHD I - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED II - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELV CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHD II - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB ABUSE FACIL SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELV CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT SELL/MFG/DELV CTRL SUB ABUSE FAC SCH IV - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCH IV - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED IV - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHD IV - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB ABUSE FACIL SCHD III - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACIL SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACIL SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED II - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHD II - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INT SELL/MFG/DEL CTRL SUB ABUSE FACIL SCHD I - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CTRL SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MFG CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY SCHED I - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL CTRL SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACIL SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1h2 - DRUGS-SELL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 1i1 - DRUGS-PRODUCE - MANUFACTURE FENTANYL/FENTANYL ANALOGUES - F: F
S893.13 1i1 - DRUGS-SELL - SELL FENTANYL/FENTANYL ANALOGUES - F: F
S893.13 1i1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSSESS WIT SELL/MFG/DEL FENTANYL/FEN ANALOGUE - F: F
S893.13 1i1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER FENTANYL/FENTANYL ANALOGUES - F: F
S893.13 2a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a1 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - COCAINE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - HEROIN - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 2a1 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 2a2 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE I - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE II - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE III - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE III - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE IV - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - BARBITURATE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE IV - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - BARBITURATE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - AMPHETAMINE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - MARIJUANA - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - HALLUCINOGEN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a2 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a3 - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 2a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a3 - DRUGS-POSSESS - INTENT PURCHASE CONTROL SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: F
S893.13 2a3 - AMPHETAMINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a3 - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a3 - AMPHETAMINE - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a4 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a6 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a6 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 2a7 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2a8 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 2b - HEROIN - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 2b - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 2b - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 2b - DRUGS-PURCHASE - PURCHASE 10 GRAMS+ CTRL SUB 893.03(1)(a)-(b) - F: F
S893.13 4a - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE I - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED I - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH I - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED II - F: F
S893.13 4a - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH II - F: F
S893.13 4a - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE II - F: F
S893.13 4a - HEROIN - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - HEROIN - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - COCAINE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - COCAINE - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4a - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE IV - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH I - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE I - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED I - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE II - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED II - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH II - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIV CONTROL SUBSTANCE TO MINOR SCHEDULE III - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH III - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV CTRL SUB SCHED IV - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH CTRL SUB SCH IV - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELV CTRL SUB SCHED III - F: S
S893.13 4b - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - HALLUCINOGEN - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - OPIUM OR DERIV - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - SYNTH NARCOTIC - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - BARBITURATE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - BARBITURATE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - AMPHETAMINE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - AMPHETAMINE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - MARIJUANA - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - MARIJUANA - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4b - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 4c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE/HIRE MINOR TO SELL/DELIV OTHER CTRL SUB - F: T
S893.13 4c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - USE MINOR AVOID DETECT/APPREH OTHER CTRL SUB - F: T
S893.13 4c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 4c - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DELIVER ANY OTHER CONTROL SUBSTANCES TO MINOR - F: T
S893.13 5a - HEROIN-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - DRUGS-IMPORTATION - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED II CTRL SUB TO STATE - F: S
S893.13 5a - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED I CTRL SUB INTO STATE - F: S
S893.13 5a - DRUGS-IMPORTATION - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - OPIUM OR DERIV-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - HALLUCINOGEN-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5a - COCAINE-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-TRAFFIC - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED IV CTRL SUB TO STATE - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED III CTRL SUB TO STATE - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED II CTRL SUB TO STATE - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED I CTRL SUB INTO STATE - F: T
S893.13 5b - AMPHETAMINE-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - MARIJUANA-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-IMPORTATION - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - DRUGS-IMPORTATION - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - SYNTH NARCOTIC-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - HALLUCINOGEN-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - OPIUM OR DERIV-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5b - BARBITURATE-SMUGGL - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 5c - AMPHETAMINE-SMUGGL - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 5c - DRUGS-POSSESS - BRING UNAUTHORIZED SCHED V CTRL SUB INTO STATE - M: F
S893.13 5c - OPIUM OR DERIV-SMUGGL - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 6a - COCAINE-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 6a - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 6a - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 6a - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSSESS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE W/O PRESCRIPTION - F: T
S893.13 6a - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 6b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 6b - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - POSSESS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS CANNABIS - M: F
S893.13 6b - MARIJUANA-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 6c - OPIUM OR DERIV-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 6c - SYNTH NARCOTIC-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 6c - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSS 10G+ CTRL SUBS 893.03(1)(a)-(b) OR (2)(b) - F: F
S893.13 6c - HEROIN-POSSESS - REMOVED - F: F
S893.13 6d - DRUGS-POSSESS - REMOVED - M: S
S893.13 6d - DRUGS-POSSESS - POSSESS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SCHEDULE V - M: S
S893.13 7a1 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8283 - F: T
S893.13 7a1 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8284 - M: F
S893.13 7a1 - FORGERY - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 7a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DISTR/DISPENSE CTRL SUB IN VIOL OF CH 893 - M: F
S893.13 7a1 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - DISTR/DISPENSE CTRL SUB IN VIOL CH 893 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a10 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - AFFIX FORGED LABEL TO CTRL SUBSTANCE - F: T
S893.13 7a10 - FORGERY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8315 - F: T
S893.13 7a11 - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8316 - F: T
S893.13 7a11 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - FALSIFY/OMIT INFO REPORT/RECORD REQ BY CH893 - F: T
S893.13 7a11b - FORGERY - DELETED - M: F
S893.13 7a12 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - STORE ANHYDROUS AMMONIA UNAPPROVED CONTAINER - F: T
S893.13 7a12 - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8317 - F: T
S893.13 7a13 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - FRAUD OBTAIN CTRL SUB NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY - F: S
S893.13 7a13 - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8318 - F: T
S893.13 7a13 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 7a2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - VIOLATE CTRL SUB RECORD COMPLIANCE REQ CH 893 - M: F
S893.13 7a2 - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8285 - F: T
S893.13 7a2 - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8286 - M: F
S893.13 7a2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - VIOL CTRL SUB RECORD COMPL REQ CH 893 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a3 - OBSTRUCT - REFUSE CTRL SUB INSPECTION AUTH CH 893 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a3 - OBSTRUCT - REFUSE CTRL SUB INSPECTIONS AUTH BY CH 893 - M: F
S893.13 7a3 - RESIST OFFICER - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8287 - F: T
S893.13 7a3 - RESIST OFFICER - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8288 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - CTRL SUB IN 893.03 SCHEDULE II W/O ORDER FORM - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8306 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - CTRL SUB IN 893.03 SCHEDULE I W/O FORM 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - CTRL SUB IN 893.03 SCHEDULE I W/O ORDER FORM - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8290 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8293 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8294 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8295 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - COCAINE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8296 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8297 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8298 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8299 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8300 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - CTRL SUB IN 893.03 SCHEDLE II W/O FORM 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8291 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - HEROIN-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8292 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8305 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8301 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8302 - M: F
S893.13 7a4 - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8289 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8303 - F: T
S893.13 7a4 - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8304 - M: F
S893.13 7a5 - DRUGS-SELL - VEH/BOAT/BLDG FOR OTHERS KEEP/SELL CTRL SUB - M: F
S893.13 7a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - KEEP VEH/BOAT/BLDG OTHERS USE CTRL SUB 2NDSUB - F: T
S893.13 7a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - KEEP VEH/BOAT/BUILDING FOR OTHERS USE CTRL SUB - M: F
S893.13 7a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8308 - M: F
S893.13 7a5 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8307 - F: T
S893.13 7a5 - DRUGS-SELL - VEH/BOAT/BLDG OTHERS KEEP/SELL CTRL SUB 2NDSUB - F: T
S893.13 7a6 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8310 - M: F
S893.13 7a6 - EMBEZZLE - CH893 CTRL SUB ENFORCEMT INFO FOR PERS GAIN - M: F
S893.13 7a6 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8309 - F: T
S893.13 7a6 - EMBEZZLE - CH893 CTRL SUB ENFORCE INFO PERS GAIN 2ND SUB - F: T
S893.13 7a7 - FRAUD - REMOVE OFFENSE - M: F
S893.13 7a7 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - POSSESS PRESCRIPTION FORM W/O SIGNATURE - F: T
S893.13 7a7 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7a7 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8311 - F: T
S893.13 7a7 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7837 - F: T
S893.13 7a7 - FRAUD - POSSESS BLANK PRESCRIPTION FORM 1ST VIOL - M: F
S893.13 7a8 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WITHHOLD INFO PRACTITIONER FOR CTRL SUB SCRIPT - F: T
S893.13 7a8 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8312 - F: T
S893.13 7a9 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8314 - F: T
S893.13 7a9 - FORGERY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8313 - F: T
S893.13 7a9 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - OBTAIN CTRL SUB THRU MISREP/FRAUD/FORGERY - F: T
S893.13 7b - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8737 - F: T
S893.13 7b - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 7b - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - FRAUD PROV CTRL SUB NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY - F: S
S893.13 7c - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - MARIJUANA-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - AMPHETAMINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - BARBITURATE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - DRUGS-DELIV/DISTR - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - RESIST OFFICER - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - HALLUCINOGEN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - HEROIN-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - OPIUM OR DERIV-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7c - COCAINE-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - SYNTH NARCOTIC-DISTRIB - REMOVED - M: F
S893.13 7c - RESIST OFFICER - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8895 - F: T
S893.13 7d - FORGERY - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7d - FORGERY - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 7e - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8963 - F: S
S893.13 7e - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8572 - F: T
S893.13 8a1 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8319 - F: T
S893.13 8a1 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - PRESCRIBER ASSIST FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN CTRL SUB - F: T
S893.13 8a2 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8320 - F: T
S893.13 8a2 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - PRESCRIBER USES TRICK/SCHEME OBTAIN CTRL SUB - F: T
S893.13 8a3 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8321 - F: T
S893.13 8a3 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WRITE CTRL SUB SCRIPT FOR FICTITIOUS PERSON - F: T
S893.13 8a4 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WRITE A CTRL SUB SCRIPT FOR MONETARY BENEFIT - F: T
S893.13 8a4 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8322 - F: T
S893.13 8c - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 8c - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 8c - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 8c - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: T
S893.13 8d - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WRITE 1+ CTRL SUB RX FOR MONETARY BENEFIT $1K+ - F: S
S893.13 8d - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 8d - DRUGS-TRAFFIC - REMOVED - F: S
S893.13 8d - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - ASSIST IN 1+ CTRL SUB RX FRAUD RECEIVE $1K+ - F: S
S893.13 8d - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - EMPLOY TRICK/SCHEME W 1+ CTRL SUB RX FOR $1K+ - F: S
S893.13 8d - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WRITE 1+ CTRL SUB RX FOR FICTIONAL PERSON $1K+ - F: S

Cases Citing Statute 893.13

Total Results: 971  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006).

Cited 143 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13963, 2006 WL 1541458

...in a dangerous situation was required to temporarily postpone the execution of a search warrant as the defendant had become a physical distraction by shouting 10 Wilkerson was also searched and arrested for: (1) possession of crack cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(f); (2) possession of cannabis, in violation of section 893.13(1)(g); (3) possession of illicit drug paraphernalia, in violation of section 893.147; and (4) obstruction of a law officer in the execution of his legal duties. 11 louder and more profanely as a large crowd gathered....
Copy

Virgilio Jimenez Arias v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 482 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cited 119 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556

...I. BACKGROUND Arias was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on August 17, 1973. On May 13, 1988, Arias pled guilty to and was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On May 12, 2003, upon returning from traveling abroad, Arias applied for admission to the United States as a returning lawful permanent resident and was paroled into the United States....
Copy

In Re Stan. Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases, 543 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1989).

Cited 112 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1989 WL 34342

...nature. Note to Judge It is the committee's opinion that F.S. 849.25(1)(c) is for the judge and not the jury. Therefore (1)(c) should not be read to the jury. EXHIBIT 8 DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT F.S. 893.13(1)(a) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance....
...cle. If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed. If a person does not have exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed. Notes to Judge 1. Note F.S. 893.13(1)(f)(g) if the charge involves possession or delivery without consideration of not more than 20 grams of cannabis....
...If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973). DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS F.S. 893.13(1)(b) Note to Judge This instruction will have to be altered if a combination of substances is alleged....
...inferred or assumed. Note to Judge If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973). DRUG ABUSE — DELIVERY TO A MINOR F.S. 893.13(1)(C) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance....
..."Deliver" or "delivery" means the actual, 893.02(4)(5) constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship. NEW INSTRUCTION DRUG ABUSE — POSSESSION ON OR NEAR SCHOOL F.S. 893.13(1)(e) Before you can find the defendant guilty of (crime charged) the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Elements 1....
...y not be inferred or assumed. Note to Judge If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973). DRUG ABUSE — POSSESSION F.S. 893.13(1)(e)(f) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance....
...If a person does not have exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed. Note to Judge 1. If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973). 2. Note F.S. 893.13(1)(f)(g) if the charge involves possession or delivery without consideration of not more than 20 grams of cannabis. TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS F.S. 893.135(1)(a) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." Cannabis is a controlled substance....
...(Defendant) knowingly [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] a certain substance 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The quantity of the cannabis involved was in excess of 100 pounds. Note to Judge If applicable, the judge should instruct the jury on F.S. 893.135(2)....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was in excess of 100 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds.] b. [The quantity of the substance involved was 2,000 pounds or more but less than 10,000 pounds.] c. [The quantity of the substance involved was 10,000 pounds or more.] TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE F.S. 893.135(1)(b) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." Cocaine or any mixture containing cocaine is a controlled substance....
...(Defendant) knowingly [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] a certain substance 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more. Note to Judge If applicable, the judge should instruct the jury on F.S. 893.135(2)....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was in excess of 28 grams but less than 200 grams.] b. [The quantity of the substance involved was 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams.] c. [The quantity of the substance involved was 400 grams or more.] TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS F.S. 893.135(1)(c) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." (specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance....
...nce *1224 2. The substance was [specific substance alleged).] [a mixture containing (specific substance alleged)]. 3. The quantity of the substance involved was four grams or more. Note to Judge If applicable, the judge should instruct the jury on F.S. 893.135(2)....
...involved was in excess of 4 grams but less than 14 grams.] b.[The quantity of the substance involved was 14 grams or more but less than 28 grams.] c.[The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more.] *1225 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE F.S. 893.135(1)(d) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." Phencyclidine or any mixture containing phencyclidine is a controlled substance....
...rida] [possessed] a certain substance 2. The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. 3. The quantity of the phencyclidine involved was 28 grams or more. Note to Judge If applicable, the judge should instruct the jury on F.S. 893.135(2)....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was in excess of 28 grams but less than 200 grams.] b. [The quantity of the substance involved was 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams.] c. [The quantity of the substance involved was 400 grams or more.] TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE F.S. 893.135(1)(e) Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." Methaqualone or any mixture containing methaqualone is a controlled substance....
...lorida] [possessed] a certain substance 2. The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The quantity of the methaqualone involved was 200 grams or more. Note to Judge If applicable, the judge should instruct the jury on F.S. 893.135(2)....
...c)1 injury — 316.193(3)(c)2 DUI manslaughter DUI — 316.193(1) Vehicular homicide — — 316.193(3)(c)3 782.071 DUI — 316.193(3)(c)2 DUI — 316.193(3)(c)1 Sale, manufacture, None Attempt, except when delivery or delivery is charged; possession with 893.13(1)(f)(g) if intent to sell, possession or delivery of manufacture or cannabis charged deliver controlled 893.13(1)(e)(f) if substance — possession is 893.13(1)(a) charged [********] Sale, delivery or None Attempt, except when possession of more delivery is charged than 10 grams of 893.13(1)(a) controlled substance 893.13(1)(e)(f) if — 893.13(1)(b) possession is charged Delivery of controlled None 893.13(1)(a) substance to person 893.13(1)(f)(g) under 18 years old if cannabis charged — 893.13(1)(c) Bringing controlled None Attempt 893.13(1)(e)(f) substance into state 893.13(1)(f)(g) if — 893.13(1)(d) cannabis charged Possession of None Attempt; 893.13(1)(f)(g) if controlled substance cannabis charged — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Offense of possession None Attempt, except when or delivery of not delivery is charged more *1241 than 20 grams of cannabis — 893.13(1)(f)(g) Obtaining controlled None substances by fraud — 893.13(3)(a)1 Possession of drug None Attempt paraphernalia — 893.147(1) Delivery, possession None Attempt, except when with intent to delivery is charged deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver drug paraphernalia — 893.147(2) Delivery of drug None None paraphernalia to a minor — 893.147(3) Trafficking in cannabis — 893.135(1)(a) None [*********] Attempt, except when delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing cannabis into state — 893.13(1)(d) Possession of cannabis — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Possession or delivery of cannabis — 893.13(1)(f)(g) Trafficking in cocaine None [*********] Attempt, except when — 893.135(1)(b) delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing cocaine into state — 893.13(1)(d) Possession of cocaine — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Trafficking in illegal None [*********] Attempt, except when drugs — 893.135(1)(c) delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing same illegal drug as charged into state — 893.13(1)(d) Possession of same illegal drug — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Trafficking in None [*********] Attempt, except when phencyclidine delivery is charged — 893.135(1)(d) 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing phencyclidine into state — 893.13(1)(d) Possession of phencyclidine — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Trafficking in None [*********] Attempt, except when methaqualone delivery is charged — 893.135(1)(d) *1242 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing methaqualone into state — 893.13(1)(d) Possession of methaqualone — 893.13(1)(e)(f) Contraband — 951.22 None The nature of the contraband may give rise to misdemeanor, lesser included offenses See Cooper v....
...4th DCA 1976), and Murray v. State, 328 So.2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). [******] See Taylor v. State, 444 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1984). [*******] But see Martin v. State, 342 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1977). [********] Provided that charged offense is a second degree felony under section 893.13(1)(a)1....
Copy

Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Cited 105 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 65502

...pinion. • § 27.56, Fla. Stat. (1991). The public defender fees may be taxable as a cost. These costs are case-specific and require compliance with the notice procedures for discretionary costs. Farmer v. State, 617 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). • § 893.13(4), .16, .165, Fla. Stat. (1991). As discussed in section VI of this opinion, the trial court is authorized to impose costs for certain drug treatment and education funds in cases involving offenses under chapter 893 and related statutes. Section 893.13(4) states that the court "may" assess these costs. The costs are directed to at least two different trust funds in subsection 893.13(4)(a) and 893.13(4)(b)....
...If Hillsborough County wishes to create such a court improvement program, it will need the authorization of the legislature. VI. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND This fund stands on better footing than does the court improvement fund. Section 893.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), authorizes the trial court to impose an additional assessment up to the amount of the relevant fine in a drug case....
...The defendant did not object to this cost when given the opportunity. Unfortunately, the local form cost order used in this case does not contain a statutory citation for this cost. We note that the form cost order in rule 3.986(c) also has no standardized language for assessments under section 893.13(4)(a)....
...s (1991), are paid into a special county trust fund, except for a small service charge retained by the clerk. The mandatory cost collected pursuant to section 960.20 goes to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund. The discretionary costs collected under section 893.13(4) go to numerous county trust funds and to the Operating Trust Fund of the Department of Law Enforcement....
Copy

Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996).

Cited 102 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1996 WL 607302

...1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); and Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We hold that guilty knowledge is an element of possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), and possession of drug paraphernalia under section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...expressly require mens rea or scienter made unknowing possession a criminal offense. This is not correct. Knowledge of possession is generally considered a part of the definition of possession as used in criminal statutes making possession a crime. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1981), prohibiting the actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, and its predecessors, have never specifically required "knowing" possession, yet possession has always been defined to include knowledge of the same....
...We agree with this view and, consistent therewith, conclude that the criminal statutes at issue before us today are more akin to offenses that presume a scienter requirement in the absence of express contrary intent. [10] The penalties imposed *743 for violating sections 893.13(6)(a) and 893.147(1) are incongruous with crimes that require no mens rea....
...Hence, the State's position really supports our holding and we commend the State for its forthright approach and candor. Sufficiency of the Information Although by statutory construction we find that guilty knowledge is an element of the crimes defined in sections 893.13(6)(a) and 893.147(1), we hold that the trial court did not err in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the information....
...[14] We hold that the defendant was entitled to a more specific instruction as requested here. CONCLUSION We quash Chicone v. State, 658 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), because it held that the State did not have to prove that Chicone knew of the illicit nature of the items he possessed under sections 893.13(6)(a) and 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1993), and find that it was error for the trial court to deny Chicone's request for a special jury instruction on knowledge. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., recused. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991) (now codified at section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)): It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid presc...
...tive. However, we find this not dispositive. All crimes of possession may be actual or constructive. See, e.g., Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 245. Case law interpreting the meaning of actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(f) is equally applicable to section 893.147....
...4th DCA 1992) (Farmer, J., dissenting), approved in part, quashed in part, 626 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993). The legislature, by inserting the word "knowingly," expressly included guilty knowledge as a core ingredient in the drug trafficking offenses. Id. at 114; see § 893.135, Fla....
Copy

Nguyen v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2009).

Cited 91 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 WL 250448

...He was held in jail for about five hours. When he was released at the end of the day, Dr. Nguyen still did not know why he had been arrested. Dr. Nguyen later learned that he had been arrested for six counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), which makes it a crime to deliver a controlled substance “[e]xcept as authorized by this chapter.” That chapter of the Florida Code authorizes medical doctors to dispense or prescribe controlled substances “in good faith and in the course of his or her professional practice only.” Fla....
...Nguyen had delivered Lortab and Valium, which contain the controlled substances hydrocodone and diazepam, “to a confidential source by use of a written order for said drug[s] not issued in good faith and in the course of his professional practice, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a)(2).” The not in good faith and not in medical practice elements were more specifically described in the affidavit underlying the warrant....
Copy

McKendry v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994).

Cited 90 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 192216

...We find the 1989 amendment changing the language of section 790.221(2) to be a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislature's intent. McKendry argues that Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1992), should control in the instant case. In Scates, the defendant was convicted under section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), of purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. Section 893.13(1)(e)(1) provides for a minimum term of imprisonment of three years....
...litation pursuant to section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989). This Court held that trial judges may order a defendant to participate in a drug rehabilitation program pursuant to section 397.12 rather than impose the three-year minimum sentence under 893.13(1)(e)(1). The State argues that Scates may be distinguished from the case before us. We agree. The statutes in Scates, section 397.12 and section 893.13(1)(e)(1), were both designed to combat drug abuse, and section 397.12 specifically refers to chapter 893....
...Section 790.221 was enacted in part specifically to address the crime of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On the other hand, section 948.01 was created to generally address the trial court's authority to grant leniency in any criminal sentencing. Furthermore, section 893.13(1)(e)(1) did not expressly refer to its sentence as "mandatory," thereby implying that the legislature intended to allow trial judges greater discretion in sentencing....
Copy

McMillon v. State, 813 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2002).

Cited 86 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 276160

...For the reasons expressed in our recent opinion in Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002), we quash the decision under review and direct that petitioner's conviction for the sale of cocaine be reversed. Terry McMillon (McMillon) was convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover officer pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1997)....
...Moreover, this decision clarifies that the majority has converted Chicone [4] error into per se reversible error. This could only be the situation if the Chicone decision is considered to have written an element into the crime. Writing of elements into crimes is for the Legislature—not this Court. NOTES [1] Section 893.13(1)(a)1 states: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
Copy

State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991).

Cited 84 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1991 WL 231597

...court for further proceedings. Patrick Weller was arrested in an undercover drug investigation and charged with two offenses. First, he was accused of committing the first-degree felony of trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1983). This offense carries a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen calendar years and a fine of $250,000. Id. Second, he was charged with the separate first-degree felony of conspiracy to traffic in 400 grams or more of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes (1983) — a crime that also carries a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence and a fine of $250,000....
...At the close of the State's case, Weller moved for judgments of acquittal on both the trafficking and conspiracy counts. These motions were denied. On the conspiracy count, Weller requested three jury instructions on the following: (1) the third-degree felony of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, see §§ 893.13(1)(a), 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1983); (2) the first-degree felony of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine in amounts less than 400 grams but more than 200 grams (which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of five calendar years and a fine of $100,000), see § 893.135(1)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (1983); and (3) the first-degree felony of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine in amounts less than 200 grams but more than twenty-eight grams (which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of three calendar years and a fine of $50,000). [1] See § 893.135(1)(b)(1), Fla....
...As we stated in Rotenberry, one offense can be committed without necessarily committing the other. Rotenberry, 468 So.2d at 976. However, this does not dispose of the issue. In the case at bar, Count II of the information indicates Weller specifically was charged with conspiracy to deliver cocaine under section 893.13(1)(a)(1): CARLOS GIRARDO GOMEZ and PATRICK DAVID WELLER ......
...minal offense, to-wit: Trafficking in Cocaine, ... in that the said Carlos Girardo Gomez and Patrick David Weller did conspire, combine, agree, or confederate to deliver Cocaine ... in an amount of four hundred (400) grams or more, ... contrary to F.S. 893.135(4), F.S. 893.135(1)(b)(3), F.S. 893.03(2)(a)(4) and F.S. 893.13(1)(a)(1)....
...minimum penalties, despite their shared status as first-degree felonies. As noted earlier, Florida law provides for a greater mandatory minimum sentence and a greater fine, determined by the quantity of the substance involved in the offense. Compare § 893.135(1)(b) with § 893.135(4), Fla....
...Is 200 grams or more, but less than 400 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 5 calendar years and to pay a fine of $100,000. 3. Is 400 grams or more, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 calendar years and to pay a fine of $250,000. § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
Copy

Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Cited 76 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2142

...NOTES [1] The charges contained in the notice to show cause alleged the following: 1. That you, Melvin Heifetz, d/b/a Key Wester Inn, licensed under the beverage laws, by and through your agent, servant or employee, Lori Ann Hart, did violate Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a) and Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) by the felony sale and/or delivery of cocaine on the following occasions: a....
...On or about September 17, 1983, sale of cocaine to Beverage Officer Delmonte while on the licensed premises. 2. That you, Melvin Heifetz, d/b/a Key Wester Inn, licensed under the beverage laws, by and through your agent, servant or employee, Linda, did violate Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a) and Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) by the felony sale and/or delivery of cocaine on the following occasions: a....
...emises as a place resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, F.S. or for the purpose of using said substances or which is used for keeping or selling the same in violation of Chapter 893, F.S. and Florida Statute 893.13(2)(a)5....
Copy

In Re Stand. Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2007).

Cited 67 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2007 WL 3101743

...The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final. It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. APPENDIX 25.2 DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT § 893.13(1)(a) and(2)(a), Fla....
...) not guilty. Lesser Included Offenses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....
...-------------------------------------------------------------------------- *265 Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If delivery of cannabis is charged 893.13(3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If possession of cannabis is charged 893.13(6)(b) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If possession is charged and offense would be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 893.13(6)(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment Note §§ 893.13(1)(g) 893.13(3) and 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. *250 25.3 DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS § 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla....
...led substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty. Lesser Included Offenses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SALE, OR PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION OF MORE THAN 10 GRAMS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sale or delivery of controlled substance 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If possession is charged 893.13(6)(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required....
...See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.4 DRUG ABUSE — DELIVERY TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty. Lesser Included Offenses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DELIVERY TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sale, manufacture, delivery, etc. 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If possession is charged and the offense would be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 893.13(6)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If possession of cannabis is charged 893.13(6)(b) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If delivery of cannabis is charged 893.13(3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *253 Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.5 DRUG ABUSE — BRINGING INTO STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty. Lesser Included Offenses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRINGING INTO STATE — 893.13(5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sale, manufacture, delivery, etc. 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If possession is charged and the offense would be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 893.13(6)(a) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If possession of cannabis is charged 893.13(6)(b) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If delivery of cannabis is charged 893.13(3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1997 [697 So.2d 84] and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.6 DRUG ABUSE — CONTRABAND IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS § 893.13(1)(c)(d), & (e) (c)-(f), Fla....
...ents beyond a reasonable doubt: *255 1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to sell] [possessed with intent to manufacture] [possessed with intent to deliver] a certain substance. Give 2 a, or 2 b or c as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. 2. a. in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility or a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight. s. 893.13(1)(c) § 893.13(1)(c-f), Fla....
...tution] [a public state, county or municipal park] [a community center] [a publicly owned recreation facility] [a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services] [a convenience business]. s. 893.13(1)(d) c. in, on, or within 1000 feet of [a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts a religious services] [a convenience business]. § 893.13(1)(e) 3....
...efendant) not guilty. Lesser Included Offenses --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DRUG ABUSE — CONTRABAND IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- — 893.13(1)(c)(d), & (e) (c)-(f) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug abuse possession 893.13(1)(f)(6)(a) 25.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- None --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment This instruction is based on section 893.13, Florida Statutes, (1997), and adapted from the standard instruction on sale of contraband near a school....
...he place where the contraband was found. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2000 [765 So.2d 692], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.7 DRUG ABUSE — POSSESSION § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...*259 Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment If the defense seeks to show a lack of knowledge as to the nature of a particular drug, an additional instruction may be required. See State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973). Note § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...e than 20 grams of cannabis. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205] and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.8 DRUG ABUSE — OBTAINING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9, Fla....
...ilty. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989, and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...The quantity of the cannabis involved was [in excess of 25 pounds] [300 or more of cannabis plants]. See State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla.1987) . 4. (Defendant) knew that the substance was cannabis. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin, but actually sold cannabis, the alternate element 4 would be given. [4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...er depending on the amount of cannabis involved. Therefore, iIf you find the defendant guilty of tTrafficking in cCannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.-3., Fla....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was [10,000 pounds or more.] [10,000 or more cannabis plants.]] Lesser Included Offenses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS — 893.135(1)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of cannabis 893.135(1)(a)1 and 2 25.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bringing cannabis into state 893.13(5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possession of cannabis — if less than 20 grams of cannabis 893.13(6)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delivery of less than 20 grams of cannabis 893.13(3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more. See State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla.1987) . *263 4. (Defendant) knew that the substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, the alternate element 4 would be given. [4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...s.] d. [The quantity of the substance involved was 150 kilograms or more. but less than 300 kilograms.] Lesser Included Offenses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE — 893.135(1)(b)1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of cocaine 893.135(1)(b)1 25.10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If sale, manufacture, or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bringing cocaine into state 893.13(5) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possession of cocaine 893.13(6)(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997, [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...(Defendant) knew that the substance was [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged)]]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold (specific substance alleged), the alternate element 4 would be given. [4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms.] d. [The quantity of the substance involved was 30 kilograms or more.] Lesser Included Offenses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS — 893.135(1)(c)1 and 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of illegal drugs 893.135(1)(c)1 25.11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bringing same illegal drug as charged into state 893.13(5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possession of same illegal drug 893.13(6)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *268 Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989, [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla.Stat....
...The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more. See State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla.1987) . 4. (Defendant) knew that the substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, the alternate element 4 would be given. [4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was 400 grams or more.] but less than 800 grams.] Lesser Included Offenses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE — 893.135(1)(d) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of phencyclidine 893.135(1)(d)1.a and b 25.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bringing phencyclidine into state 893.13(5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possession of phencyclidine 893.13(6)(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004)]. 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The quantity of the substance involved was 28 200 grams or more. See State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla.1987) . *271 4. (Defendant) knew that the substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, the alternate element 4 would be given. [4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla.Stat.), but actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] methaqualone or a mixture containing methaqualone.] Definitions....
...[The quantity of the substance involved was 25 kilograms or more.] but less than 50 kilograms.] Lesser Included Offenses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE — 893.135(1)(e)1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of methaqualone 893.135(1)(e)1.a and b 25.13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *273 Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bringing methaqualone into state 893.13(5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possession of methaqualone 893.13(6)(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007....
...[2] The Committee additionally recommends updating the trafficking instructions to include the current proscribed amounts of drugs involved and recommends updating instruction 25.6, Contraband in Specified Locations, to include additional locations and distances in accordance with current legislation. See § 893.13(1)(c)-(f), Fla....
Copy

United States v. Alphonso James, Jr., 430 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2005).

Cited 65 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24665, 2005 WL 3070485

...In 1997, James was convicted in a Florida state court of attempted burglary of a dwelling, in violation of Florida Statute §§ 810.02 and 777.04. In 1998, James was convicted in Florida state court of trafficking in illegal drugs in violation of Florida Statute § 893.135....
...essing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance . . . , for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The Florida Statute under which James was convicted, section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(b), reads as follows: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive...
...w. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 590-91. Florida, like Georgia, has a three-tiered scheme for punishing drug-related offenses. Under Florida law, those three tiers are the following: (1) possession of any amount of a controlled substance, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a); (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, § 893.13(1)(a); and (3) trafficking in cocaine by possession of 28 grams or more of the drug, § 893.135(1)(b)....
...8 of drugs that the defendant possessed, and the sentence imposed increases accordingly. See id. James was convicted under this third tier for possession of between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine. Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)(1)(b). Florida’s three-tiered system for punishing drug crimes is nearly identical to Georgia’s three-tiered scheme....
Copy

Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Cited 59 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 WL 4865137

...He contends 1) that the trial court erred in denying his dispositive motion to suppress, and 2) that the statute under which he was convicted is facially unconstitutional. We reject both claims and write only to address Flagg's constitutional challenge to section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...When Flagg opened his hand, the officer saw what turned out to be two pieces of crack cocaine fall to the ground. Flagg was arrested, and during a search incident to arrest, a crack pipe was discovered in Flagg's pocket. *140 Flagg was charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), a third-degree felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147(1)(b), a first-degree misdemeanor Flagg filed a motion to suppress the drugs and crack pipe on the basis that the stop was illegal....
...The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Flagg to 24.975 months in prison for the possession offense and to time served for the paraphernalia offense. This timely appeal follows. In addition to challenging the denial of the motion to suppress, Flagg argues for the first time on appeal [1] that section 893.13(6)(a) is unconstitutional because the mens rea requirement in the statute was eliminated by section 893.101, which provides in pertinent part that: The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter....
...denied, 915 So.2d 1198 (Fla.2005). Flagg acknowledges this contrary authority, but contends that we should recede from our prior decisions and adopt the reasoning of Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D.Fla. 2011), which held section 893.13 facially unconstitutional based on the same argument presented here....
...the controlled substance"). Furthermore, because lack of knowledge is not a defense to a true strict liability crime, [3] the availability of the affirmative defense in section 893.101 undermines the essential premise in Shelton that the offenses in section 893.13 are strict liability crimes that may not be constitutionally punished as felonies....
...Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Although we agree that the uncertainty caused by Shelton is affecting the administration of justice around the state and that an expeditious decision from the supreme court addressing the constitutionality of section 893.13 is needed, we do not see any reason not to reaffirm our view that the statute is constitutional. Indeed, we believe that a definitive statement from this court reaffirming the constitutionality of section 893.13 notwithstanding Shelton will promote the consistent administration of justice by resolving the issue for the trial courts, thereby allowing drug prosecutions to proceed, at least until the supreme court or another district court weighs in on the issue....
...on the issue. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992) (recognizing that "in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts"). In sum, for the reasons stated above, we reject Flagg's claim that section 893.13 is facially unconstitutional and affirm his conviction and sentence....
Copy

Parker v. State, 406 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1981).

Cited 58 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...The district court denied petitioner's motion for clarification, but granted his petition for certificate of direct conflict and certified such to this Court. Petitioner then invoked our discretionary jurisdiction. Resolution of this matter, and of the conflict between the district courts, depends upon our interpretation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977)....
...r's imprisonment. If possession of such is a second-degree felony, as respondent contends, then the conspiracy offense is a third-degree felony, and petitioner's probation period does not exceed the maximum sentence which may be imposed therefor. Subsection 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), provides as follows: 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....
...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. Petitioner contends that in order to be convicted of a second-degree felony under subsection 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), the person charged with possessing in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis must have possessed such with intent to sell or deliver the cannabis. He further asserts that simple possession of over 100 pounds is covered by subsection 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1977), which provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant t...
...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 1978). Respondent, the state, on the other hand, argues that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977), and the legislative intent thereof are both clear, and that mere possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis is a second-degree felony. Respondent's argument is supported by decisions from the Fourth District Court of Appeal. See Chesnut v. State, 382 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and State v. Brady, 379 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We agree with respondent's contention that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977), clearly and unambiguously establishes that mere possession of over 100 pounds of cannabis constitutes a second-degree felony, regardless of the possessor's intended use therefor. Section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), provides generally that one who sells, manufactures, delivers, or possesses with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver cannabis is guilty of a third-degree felony. Simple possession of cannabis is not included in the conduct proscribed under the provisions of the first portion of said section. The last clause of section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), however, creates an exception for cases involving over 100 pounds of cannabis....
...tion, rather, it covers simple "possession." We think that the variation in the wording of the two clauses is a distinction with a difference. There is a marked difference between "possession with intent" and simple "possession." The first clause of section 893.13(1)(a)2 contains a provision that the last part does not, and "[t]he presence of such a provision in the one part and its absence in the other is an argument against reading it as implied." United States v....
...Nor is this a situation justifying departure from the plain, literal meaning of the statute. Such departure is permitted when a literal interpretation would lead to an illogical result or one not intended by the lawmakers. State ex rel. Hughes v. Wentworth, 135 Fla. 565, 185 So. 357, 360 (1938). A literal reading of section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), results in *1092 neither of the above....
...tory construction and is subsumed to and construed in pari materia with the rest of the statute, it is clear that possession really means "possession with intent." Regardless, however, of the merits of petitioner's statutory interpretation language, section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), provides that "possession with intent" of cannabis is a third-degree felony while simple "possession" of over 100 pounds of the same constitutes a second-degree felony....
...the clear meaning of the statute. As always, legislative intent is the pole star by which we must be guided in interpreting the provisions of a law. See State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255 (1928). The legislature has evidenced an intent, in section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), to punish more severely those possessing large quantities of cannabis....
...be corrected, the language of the act, including its title, the history of its enactment, and the state of the law already in existence bearing on the subject", ... (Emphasis added.) The title to chapter 76-200, Laws of Florida, 1976, which amended section 893.13(1)(a) by adding the clause pertaining to amounts of cannabis exceeding 100 pounds, reads as follows: AN ACT relating to criminal penalties; amending s. 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, providing that the sale, delivery or possession in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis is a felony of the second degree; providing an effective date....
...guilty of a second-degree felony — no reference whatsoever is made to an intent requirement. Petitioner argues that it is unreasonable to interpret chapter 76-200 as covering simple possession because a clause so doing would logically be located in section 893.13(1)(e), which relates to simple possession of cannabis....
...We agree that perhaps the provision relating to possession of over 100 pounds of cannabis could have been better located, but that affects neither the rule nor the clear meaning of the law. And, repeating ourselves, although the introductory clause of section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), refers to "possession with intent," the portion in question creates an exception to that which precedes it, and need not and does not track the provisions thereof. Also relevant here are any amendments of section 893.13 since the enactment of chapter 76-200, for, "[t]he court has the right and duty, in arriving at the correct meaning of a prior statute, to consider subsequent legislation." Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla. 1952). The subsequent legislative history of the act buttresses our interpretation thereof. Chapter 79-1, Laws of Florida, 1979, enacted section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides that anyone "who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis is guilty of a felony of the first degree." Such bears out respondent's observation that the legislature intends that more severe *1093 penalties be imposed upon those possessing large quantities of cannabis. Petitioner counters that section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979), did nothing to resolve the question here, because it did not resolve the conflicting provisions of section 893.13 regarding possession and possession with intent, and that section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, would still control in a "mere possession" situation. Chapter 80-70, Laws of Florida, 1980, however, eliminated any such confusion the following year. It amended section 893.135 to provide that those possessing over 100 pounds of cannabis are guilty of a first-degree felony "notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13." The legislature thus made it clear that if one possesses over 100 pounds of cannabis, the penalty is the same regardless of the intent involved. The legislature's removal of any doubts regarding the statute reinforces our conclusion that section 893.13(1)(a)2 was intended to cover those who simply possessed over 100 pounds of cannabis. In light of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the district court ruled properly in affirming petitioner's sentence. Section 893.13(1)(a)2 quite clearly provides that possession of over 100 pounds of cannabis is a second-degree felony....
Copy

Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Cited 46 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1070000, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5007

...el, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. WETHERELL, J. Appellant raises three issues in this direct appeal of his conviction and sentence: 1) that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional; 2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and 3) that the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary fine and surcharge that had not been orally pronounced....
Copy

Brown v. State, 629 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1994).

Cited 43 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 1904

...Rogers, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, *842 Asst. Atty. Gen. and Gypsy Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent/appellant. HARDING, Justice. We have consolidated for our review three cases in which district courts of appeal considered the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). See State v. Kirkland, 618 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Thomas, 616 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Brown v. State, 610 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Section 893.13(1)(i) imposes enhanced penalties on those who sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, or possess controlled substances within 200 feet of a public housing facility....
...We therefore affirm the decisions of the Second District in Thomas and Kirkland and quash the First District's decision in Brown. We remand Brown for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The defendants in all three cases were charged with violating section 893.13(1)(i) by committing narcotics violations within 200 feet of a public housing facility....
...was intended" by the phrase "public housing facility." Brown, 610 So.2d at 1358. The court affirmed Brown's conviction. In the cases before us, the defendants in Kirkland, Thomas, and Brown argue that the phrase "public housing facility" as used in section 893.13(1)(i) is unconstitutionally vague....
...In the instant cases, there is sufficient doubt about the statute, requiring the doubt to be resolved in favor of the citizen and against the State. Thus, we find the statute facially invalid under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. The sticking point of section 893.13(1)(i) is the heart of the statute: The phrase "public housing facility" simply does not give citizens fair warning about what conduct is forbidden....
...[4] While that alone is not enough to render a statute unconstitutionally vague, we have found neither definitions from case law nor related statutes to aid us in determining the meaning of "public housing facility." As a result, arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement is likely. We note by comparison section 893.13(1)(e), which provides enhanced penalties for drug offenses that occur within 1000 feet of a "public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school." The plain language of the statute gives a clearer indication of the conduct prohibited than does the amorphous phrase "public housing facility" at issue in the instant case. In addition, the word "school" has a common understanding, while the same cannot be said about the phrase "public housing facility." When a statute such as section 893.13(1)(i) does not implicate constitutionally protected conduct in an overbreadth context, a facial challenge for vagueness will be upheld only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495-96, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Because section 893.13(1)(i) does not specify a standard of conduct, citizens and law enforcement must guess at what the statute prohibits. It therefore follows that such a statute is impermissibly vague in all applications. We find no need to resort to dictionaries or to present a parade of hypothetical horribles in reaching our conclusion that section 893.13(1)(i) is void for vagueness....
...The statute presents a due process problem because the phrase "public housing facility" gives virtually no notice to Florida citizens of the type of conduct banned. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. No matter what goals the Legislature had in mind when enacting section 893.13(1)(i), statutes nonetheless must include sufficient guidelines to put those who will be affected on notice as to what will render them liable to criminal sanctions....
...Such a practice would constitute judicial legislating, a practice neither our Constitution nor this Court allows. Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const.; Brown v. State, 358 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1978). The precision required of statutes must come from the Legislature. Having found the provision of section 893.13(1)(i) that deals with public housing facilities unconstitutionally void for vagueness, we affirm the decisions of the Second District in *844 Thomas and Kirkland and quash the First District's decision in Brown. We remand Brown for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not address the other issues raised in the briefs, and we do not pass on the constitutionality of the other provisions in section 893.13(1)(i)....
...GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion, in which McDONALD, J., concurs. McDONALD, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. I cast my lot with and would approve Brown v. State, 610 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). GRIMES, Justice, dissenting. I do not believe that section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...not only government subsidized housing for low income residents, but could also be read to include offices, construction sites, and other "facilities," that establish or serve public housing. We disagree, and join the First District, which held that section 893.13(1)(i) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness....
...That marginal cases might exist where doubts may arise as to whether there may be prosecution under subsection (2)(a) does not render the enactment unconstitutionally vague. Sandstrom, 370 So.2d at 6. There are no doubt some types of facilities which cannot be said to clearly fall within the coverage of section 893.13(1)(i)....
...McDONALD, J., concurs. NOTES [1] The statute also applies enhanced penalties to drug offenses committed within 200 feet of a public or private college, university, or other postsecondary educational institution, or within 200 feet of a public park. § 893.13(1)(i), Fla....
Copy

Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990).

Cited 40 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1990 WL 13538

...Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent. GRIMES, Justice. We review State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the court certified the following question as one of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? Id....
...Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the question in the affirmative. There are two petitioners in this case. One was charged with selling cocaine, and the other was charged with buying cocaine, both within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). [*] The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional and dismissed the charges. The district court of appeal reversed and upheld the validity of the statute. Petitioners' initial argument is that chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, of which section 893.13(1)(e) was a part, violates that portion of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, which provides: Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title....
...State, 453 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1984), the constitution requires a "cogent relationship" among sections of an act in order to avoid unconstitutionality. I find that relationship lacking here. Therefore, I dissent. BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [*] Section 893.13(1) reads in relevant part: (e) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled subst...
Copy

State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1993).

Cited 37 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1993 WL 241021

...s (1989). In denying Williams' motion to dismiss, the trial court found that the Broward County Sheriff's Office manufactured crack cocaine for "a bonafied [sic] and legitimate law enforcement purpose" and that the Sheriff's Office acted pursuant to section 893.13(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (1989), and State v. Bass, 451 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Williams proceeded to trial and the jury convicted him of purchasing a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a secondary school. § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
...e Sheriff's approval. The stipulation also shows the procedure which the chemist used in making the crack cocaine. [4] The chemist's conversion of the powdered cocaine into crack cocaine clearly meets the definition of manufacture under the statute. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1989), which prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance contains two exclusions for law enforcement officials. Section 893.13(5)(b)5 excludes the "actual or constructive possession of controlled substances" by "[o]fficers or employees of state, federal, of local governments acting in their official capacity," and section 893.13(5)(c) excludes the "delivery of controlled substances by a law enforcement officer for bona fide law enforcement purposes in the course of an active criminal investigation." Section 893.13, however, does not contain a provision allowing law enforcement officials to manufacture a controlled substance....
Copy

State v. Ayers, 901 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Cited 37 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 991571

...We conclude, however, that the State's claim that the downward departure sentence lacked a factual basis was properly preserved and has merit; we therefore reverse the sentence. Background The State charged Ayers with the third-degree felony offense of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2003), and the misdemeanors of *944 possession of paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147 and fleeing or attempting to elude in violation of section 316.1935, Florida Statutes (2003)....
Copy

United States v. Shannon, 631 F.3d 1187 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited 32 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2011 WL 227677

...Whitson, 597 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine . . . , commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as ‘trafficking in cocaine[.]’” Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1....
...n.2 Indeed, the statute provides that “[a]ny person who knowingly . . . purchases . . . , or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine . . . , commits a felony of the first degree . . . .” Fla. Sta. § 893.135(1)(b)1. (emphasis added)....
...It is clear that U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)’s definition of “controlled substance offense” -- which includes the possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute but not the purchase thereof -- and Florida case law interpreting Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b) compel the result in this case -- namely, that Roye’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine, which we must assume was for the purchase of 28 grams or more of cocaine, does not constitute a “controlled substance offense” justifying career offender status....
...As this Court explained in United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2005): Florida . . . has a three-tiered scheme for punishing drug-related offenses. Under Florida law, those three tiers are the following: (1) possession of any amount of a controlled substance, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a); (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, § 893.13(1)(a); and (3) trafficking in cocaine by possession 7 of 28 grams or more of the drug, § 893.135(1)(b).1 Under this third tier, trafficking in cocaine is further delineated according to the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed, and the sentence imposed increases accordingly. Id....
...Although in James we only mentioned trafficking by possession, Florida’s “trafficking in cocaine” statute can also be violated by selling, purchasing, manufacturing, delivering, or importing 28 grams or more of cocaine. See Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1. 8 Second, if we had had before us all of the relevant Shepard documents in this case, we almost surely would have been able to determine conclusively which prong of Florida...
...Even following this approach, however, the two Shepard documents the government submitted -- namely, the information and the plea agreement -- do not resolve the ambiguity in Roye’s conviction. Count 1 of the information simply tracks the disjunctive language of Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b) in stating that “[o]n March 26, 1996, [Roye] did unlawfully and knowingly sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, or was knowingly in actual or constructive possession of more than More than [sic] 28 grams of Cocaine, a controlled substance defined in Section 893.03, contrary to Section 893.135.”3 DE 37-5. The plea agreement is equally uninformative, simply 3 Count 2 of the information charges Roye with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(a), which punishes the actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance but does not specify the quantity. See Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a). Although Roye also pled no contest to this count, it is unclear from the limited information presented in this case whether the cocaine possessed for purposes of this simple possession charge is the same cocaine associated with the t...
...The importance of fully understanding the factual basis underlying Roye’s no contest plea is further underscored by the counterintuitive way in which Florida’s courts have interpreted the purchase and possession prongs of Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b)....
...Florida’s intermediate appellate courts. See Galindo v. ARI Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 771, 775 (11th Cir. 2000). In Ras v. State, 610 So.2d 24 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992), the Second District Court of Appeals made clear that violation of the purchase prong of Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b) does not necessarily imply violation of that statute’s possession prong....
Copy

Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997).

Cited 31 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1997 WL 476416

...peal affirmed per curiam. Gibbs subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the Fourth District granted to the extent that it permitted Gibbs to argue that his dual convictions and sentences for trafficking possession under section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), [1] and simple possession under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1989), [2] violated his right under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution not to be placed in double jeopardy....
...tional issue: How is the comparative elements analysis made when a statute prohibits alternative types of conduct? The trafficking statute prohibits the potential alternatives of selling, purchasing, delivering, bringing into Florida, or possessing. § 893.135, Fla....
...We remand to the district court for further proceedings in accord with this decision. We decline to address the other issues raised in the briefs which are unrelated to the certified question. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this State, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine ... is guilty of a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine." [2] Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1989) (now codified as section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)), provides in relevant part: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance.......
Copy

United States v. Keenan Joyner, 882 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2018).

Cited 30 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...§ 843.01, (2) a 2009 conviction for attempted strong arm robbery, in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 812.13(1), (2)(c), & 777.04, and (3) a 2009 conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(A)(1)....
...2551, 2556-58, 2563 (2015). Thus, we address whether Joyner’s prior convictions for resisting an officer with violence and for 4 Joyner does not dispute that his conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), is a serious drug offense under the ACCA. In any event, this Court has held that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), like Joyner’s, qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA....
Copy

State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 1365, 2012 WL 2849485

...e Prevention and Control Act, that provide that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offenses under the chapter but that the lack of such knowledge is an affirmative defense. Based on its conclusion that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011) — which creates offenses related to the sale, manufacture, delivery, and possession of controlled substances — is facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and the United States Constitutions, the circuit court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit issued an order granting motions to dismiss charges filed under section 893.13 in forty-six criminal cases. The circuit court reasoned that the requirements of due process precluded the Legislature from eliminating knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance as an element of the offenses under section 893.13....
...V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the circuit court erred in determining the statute to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order granting the motions to dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Section 893.13, part of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, provides in part that except as otherwise authorized “it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance” or “to be in actual or constructive possession of a *415 controlled substance.” § 893.13(l)(a), (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). Depending on the controlled substance involved and the circumstances of the offense, a violation of section 893.13 can be punished as a misdemeanor, a third-degree felony, a second-degree felony, or a first-degree felony. See, e.g, § 893.13(l)(a)(l), (l)(a)(2), (l)(a)(3), (l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 893.13 itself does not specify what mental state a defendant must possess in order to be convicted for selling, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing a controlled substance. In Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), this Court addressed whether section 893.13 should be interpreted to include a mens rea — that is, a “guilty mind” — element....
...ties for crimes where a knowledge element is not required. Chicone, 684 So.2d at 741 . This Court further reasoned that the Legislature “would have spoken more clearly” if it had intended to not require proof of guilty knowledge to convict under section 893.13....
...2d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Lanier v. State, 74 So.3d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently concluded, however, that section 893.13 is unconstitutional because it does not require sufficient mens rea on the part of the defendant to sustain a conviction. See Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011). First, the Middle District reasoned that to withstand constitutional scrutiny, section 893.13 should have provided lighter penalties, “such as fines or short jail sentences, not imprisonment in the state penitentiary.” Shelton, 802 F.Supp.2d at 1301 (quoting Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 616 , 114 S.Ct. 1793 , 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994)). Second, the Middle District reasoned that because of the substantial social stigma associated with a felony conviction, a conviction under section 893.13 should require a guilty mind. Shelton, 802 F.Supp.2d at 1302 . And third, assuming that a defendant could be convicted under section 893.13 for delivering or transferring a container without being aware of its contents, the Middle District concluded that section 893.13 violates due process by regulating potentially innocent conduct. Shelton, 802 F.Supp.2d at 1305 . Citing Shelton as persuasive — not binding — authority, the circuit court in this case concluded that section 893.13 is facially unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clauses of article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The circuit court reasoned that the Legislature did not have authority to dispense with a mens rea element for a serious felony crime. The State now appeals the circuit court’s decision in this Court. The State asserts that section 893.13, as modified by section 893.101, is facially constitutional and that the circuit court therefore erred in granting the motions to dismiss....
...uilty knowledge element. We then examine the limited circumstances in which the absence of a guilty knowledge element has resulted in a holding that the requirements of due process were not satisfied. Finally, we explain our conclusion that sections 893.13 and 893.101 do not violate due process....
...ose cases in which definitions of particular criminal offenses were found to violate the requirements of due process. The rationale for each of those cases is not applicable to the context of controlled substance offenses under Florida law. Sections 893.13 and 893.101 do not trigger the concern raised in Lambert and Giorgetti ....
...The statutes do not penalize without notice a “failure to act [that absent the statutes] otherwise amounts to essentially innocent conduct,” such as living in a particular municipality without registering. Giorgetti, 868 So.2d at 517 (quoting Oxx, 417 So.2d at 290 ). Rather than punishing inaction, to convict under section 893.13 the State must prove that the defendant engaged in the affirmative act of selling, *421 manufacturing, delivering, or possessing a controlled substance....
...tus — because in section 893.101 the Legislature has expressly provided that a person charged under chapter 898 who did not have knowledge of the illegality of his or her conduct may raise that fact as an affirmative defense. Furthermore, sections 893.13 and 893.101 — unlike the provisions we invalidated in Schmitt, 1969 Piper Navajo, Saiez, Walker, and Delmonico — are rationally related to the Legislature’s goal of controlling substances that have a high potential for abuse, and the statutes do not interfere with any constitutionally protected rights. The Legislature tailored section 893.13 to permit legitimate, medical uses of controlled substances but to prohibit non-medically necessary uses of those substances. Section 893.13 expressly excludes from criminal liability individuals who possess a controlled substance that “was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription,” § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...controlled substances as part of their profession: pharmacists, medical practitioners, hospital employees, government officials working in their official capacity, common carriers, pharmaceutical companies, and the employees and agents of the above, § 893.13(9), Fla....
...In the unusual circumstance where an individual has actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance but has no knowledge that the substance is illicit, the defendant may present such a defense to the jury. Because we conclude that the Legislature did not exceed its constitutional authority in redefining section 893.13 to not require proof that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, we likewise conclude that the Legislature did not violate due process by defining lack of such knowledge as an affirmative defense to the offenses set out in chapter 893....
...Thus, the purported affirmative defense unconstitutionally placed a burden on Cohen — as a *423 defendant — to refute the State’s case. Id. at 52 . Here, the Legislature’s decision to make the absence of knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance an affirmative defense is constitutional. Under section 893.13, as modified by section 893.101, the State is not required to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance in order to convict the defendant of one of the defined offenses....
Copy

Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Cited 27 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31626711

...This appears adequate to support an habitual offender sentence under section 775.084(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes (2002), which only requires that the felony for which the defendant is sentenced as an habitual offender and one of the two required prior felony convictions not be a violation of section 893.13 (purchase or possession of a controlled substance)....
Copy

Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 27 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 242640

...Even though one of the predicate convictions for appellant's habitual felony offender sentence involved possession of a controlled substance, appellant's *269 habitual offender sentence is authorized by statute because one of the predicate felony convictions on which the sentencing court relied was "not a violation of section 893.13 relating to purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." § 775.084(1)(a)(3.), Fla....
...As the Ishmael and Rollins courts, we read section 775.084(1)(a)(3.) to authorize a habitual felony offender sentence if the trial court finds that neither the sentencing felony nor one of the two predicate felonies involved a conviction for possession under section 893.13....
Copy

Wilkerson v. State, 556 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cited 26 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 5403

...After Wilkerson refused to leave, an officer arrested her on a charge of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties and conducted a search. She was charged by information with four offenses: (1) possession of crack cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(f); (2) possession of cannabis, in violation of section 893.13(1)(g); (3) possession of illicit drug paraphernalia, in violation of section 893.147; and (4) obstruction of a law officer in the execution of his legal duties without offering or doing violence to such officer, in violation of section 843.02....
Copy

United States v. Travis Lamont Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).

Cited 26 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...§ 4B1.4(a), Smith faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court ruled that Smith’s prior convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school or church, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(c)(2); sale of cocaine with intent to distribute, id. § 893.13(1)(a)(1); and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, id., were “serious drug offense[s],” 18 U.S.C....
...§ 4B1.1(c)(3). The district court ruled that Nunez’s prior state convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, Fla. Stat. 4 Case: 13-15227 Date Filed: 12/22/2014 Page: 5 of 12 § 893.13(1)(a)(2), and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, id., were “controlled substance offense[s],” U.S.S.G....
...jections and our review should be de novo. Because we conclude that the district courts committed no error, we need not decide which standard of review governs this issue. Smith and Nunez argue that their prior convictions for violations of section 893.13(1) of the Florida Statutes do not qualify as “serious drug offense[s],” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A), and “controlled substance offense[s],” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Smith and Nunez rely on our decision in Donawa v. United States Attorney General, where we were asked to decide whether section 893.13(1)(a)(2) was a “drug trafficking aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, 8 U.S.C....
...[§] 801 et seq.[,] the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act[,] 21 U.S.C. [§] 951 et seq.[,] or chapter 705 of title 46,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We ruled that the “federal analogue,” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), to the Florida statute, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), supplied the elements of the “generic federal definition” of “drug trafficking crime.” Donawa, 735 F.3d at 1280–81 (internal quotation marks 8 Case: 13-15227 Date Filed: 12/22/2014 Page: 9 of 12 and citation omitted)....
...Richardson, 8 F.3d 769, 770 (11th Cir. 1993). The definitions of “serious drug offense,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), and “controlled substance offense,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), are unambiguous. Nunez also argues that our precedents require us to hold that section 893.13(1) is not a controlled substance offense, but his argument fails....
...“controlled substance offense[s],” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(2) (Nov. 1988), only if they are “substantially similar” to federal drug trafficking crimes. 936 F.2d 533, 536–37 (11th Cir. 1991). Nunez maintains that, because we held in Donawa that section 893.13(1)(a)(2) is not a “drug trafficking crime,” 735 F.3d at 1281, section 893.13(1) cannot be a controlled substance offense....
...“similar offenses.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(2) (Nov. 1988). But the definition of “controlled substance offense,” in this appeal, does not reference drug trafficking or a class of “similar offenses.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) (Nov. 2013). Section 893.13(1) of the Florida Statutes is both a “serious drug offense,” 18 U.S.C....
Copy

State v. Dugan, 685 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1996).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1996 WL 499249

...Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court below. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.15, Florida Statutes (1993), refers to subdivisions 893.13(1)(f) and (g). However, the legislature amended section 893.13, effective January 1, 1994, eliminating subdivisions 893.13(1)(f) and (g). See ch. 93-406, § 23, Laws of Florida. The legislature directed the Division of Statutory Revision of the Joint Legislative Management Committee to prepare a reviser's bill to conform all cross-references to section 893.13 as amended. See ch. 93-406, § 33, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to this section, the legislature subsequently amended section 893.15 to refer to persons who violated subdivision 893.13(6)(a) or (b)....
Copy

United States v. Ted Phillips, 834 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2016).

Cited 25 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 WL 4435613

...minimum sentence of 15 years. Id. § 924(e). The presentence investigation report concluded that Phillips was an armed career criminal under the Act because he had eight prior convictions for possessing cocaine with the intent to sell, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)....
...The District Court Correctly Sentenced Phillips as an Armed Career Criminal. Phillips contends that the district court should not have sentenced him as an armed career criminal, despite his eight prior convictions for possessing cocaine with the intent to sell, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)....
Copy

Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Cited 24 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1584618

...e, the sentencing judge is entitled to impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum without having to make any factual findings. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.992. Since possession of cocaine is a third-degree felony with a five-year statutory maximum, see section 893.13, Florida Statutes, Williams' 30 month sentence is not illegal for purposes of Rule 3.800(a)....
Copy

State v. Walker, 444 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Cited 23 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant. Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Robert J. Lancaster, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellee. GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to section 893.13(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), which requires that a lawfully dispensed controlled substance must be kept in the container in which it was originally delivered....
...by her prescription. On her way to work she was involved in a traffic accident. Subsequently she was detained for a driver's license violation and her purse was searched. The Centrax tablets were then discovered. She was charged with a violation of section 893.13(2)(a)7, a first degree misdemeanor, which provides as follows: (2)(a) It is unlawful for any person: ......
...To possess a controlled substance lawfully dispensed to him by a pharmacist or practitioner, in a container other than that in which the controlled substance was originally delivered. In county court Ms. Walker filed a motion to dismiss the information, arguing that section 893.13(2)(a)7 was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and violated the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions....
...See also Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 397 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1981). Our task is first to examine the legislative goals of chapter 893, Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, and then to determine whether the means chosen, that is section 893.13(2)(a)7, bears a reasonable relationship to any of those objectives....
...As found by the court below, these are "reasonable and worthwhile objectives." We also agree with the trial court's determination that only the third objective, that of expanded state control over the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs, is a legitimate legislative objective to which section 893.13(2)(a)7 could be rationally related....
...tate and may serve to obstruct that objective: [T]he statute under attack in the case at bar is inconsistent with the objective of the statutory scheme and "cannot be said to bear a fair and substantial relationship to the objective sought." Indeed, § 893.13(2)(a)(7) Fla....
...The legislative concern of chapter 893, however, is to convict persons who illegally possess controlled substances, not those who remove prescription drugs from their original containers. When weighed against the stated legislative objective, we find that the application of section 893.13(2)(a)7 is an irrational means to achieve that goal....
...tion. To avoid conviction for a possession charge, the individual ultimately will have to show that he obtained such substance in a legal manner. He can do that even without ever producing the so-called original container. [1] In the final analysis, section 893.13(2)(a)7 criminalizes activity that is otherwise inherently innocent....
...persons involved in criminal activity. Yet, because the statute was susceptible of application to entirely innocent activities, the court struck it down as creating prohibitions which completely lacked any rational basis. In the same manner, even if section 893.13(2)(a)7 helps law officers in deciding whom to arrest, the blanket prohibition against carrying prescription drugs which are controlled substances except in original containers causes activities which are otherwise entirely innocent to become criminal violations....
...Without evidence of criminal behavior, the prohibition of this conduct lacks any rational relation to the legislative purpose of controlling drug distribution. See Schultz v. State, *1141 361 So.2d 416 (Fla. 1978); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1973). Accordingly, we find that section 893.13(2)(a)7 does not bear a reasonable relationship to the legislative objective of expanding the state's control over the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs. We declare section 893.13(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), in violation of our state and federal constitutions, and we affirm the dismissal of the information....
Copy

Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Cited 22 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16075, 2011 WL 4808803

...ent evidence to support the jury verdict, the verdict will not be reversed on appeal. State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989). The standard jury instructions set out the three elements that must be proven to establish possession of cocaine under section 893.13(6)(a), which are: 1) that the defendant possessed a substance; 2) that the substance was cocaine; and 3) that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance....
Copy

State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Cited 21 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22316815

...See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380. The trial court granted Odom's motion and acquitted him of possession of cocaine. On appeal, the parties maintain that the present case concerned Odom's constructive, rather than actual, possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001)....
Copy

Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1979).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee. OVERTON, Justice. Rafael Cilento, a medical doctor licensed to practice in Florida, was convicted in circuit court pursuant to plea of nolo contendere of selling or delivering a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...n bad faith and not in the course of professional practice, a controlled substance, to wit: methaqualone... ." Section 893.03(3)(a)(6) classifies methaqualone as a Schedule III substance, sale or delivery of which is a third-degree felony *665 under section 893.13(1)(a)(2). To distribute or dispense a controlled substance is made a misdemeanor of the first degree by section 893.13(2)(a), (b)....
...But this is not a case where the legislature attempted to control "any other drug to which the drug abuse laws of the United States apply... ." 272 So.2d at 474. The final issue on appeal is whether the appellant was properly charged with a felony. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975), which defines "prohibited acts" under the controlled substances law, does not explicitly cover the conduct of a medical doctor who issues a prescription for a controlled *666 substance outside the course of his professional practice. Section 893.13(1)(a) makes it unlawful for any person to "sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." Subsection (1)(a) goes on to indicate the degree of offense committed by a violator, depending on which controlled substance is involved. By virtue of its classification, sale or delivery of methaqualone is a felony. Section 893.13(2)(a)(1) makes it unlawful for any person to "distribute or dispense" a controlled substance, and section 893.13(2)(b) makes this offense a misdemeanor....
...Appellant would have us conclude that on the face of the statute it is unclear whether either subsection (1) or subsection (2) was intended to cover the conduct at issue and the statute is therefore inapplicable or, at most, that a physician can be convicted only of a misdemeanor under 893.13(2)....
...." This proviso would not be in the act unless it were intended that a prescription given in bad faith, or outside the doctor's professional practice, be penalized. This provision is "a necessary exception to the imposition of criminal penalties for the conduct proscribed under Section 893.13." State v....
...The fact that certain conduct might violate more than one criminal provision does not necessarily render it invalid. Fayerweather v. State, 332 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1976). Appellant, as a physician, is capable of violating either or both of the provisions, 893.13(1) and 893.13(2). We find that section 893.13 is constitutional and that the information did properly charge the appellant with felonious violation of section 893.13(1)....
...BOYD, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with that portion of the Court's opinion that finds the statute to be constitutional. I dissent, however, from the majority's decision holding that the appellant was properly charged with and convicted of a felony. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975), which defines "prohibited acts" under the controlled substances law, does not explicitly cover the conduct of a medical doctor who issues a prescription for a controlled substance in bad faith and outside the course of his professional practice. I agree, however, for the reasons stated by the majority, that such conduct is intended to be punishable under section 893.13. The question the appellant presents is whether it is punishable as a felony or as a misdemeanor. *667 Section 893.13(1)(a) makes it unlawful for any person to "sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." Subsection (1)(a) goes on to indicate the degree of offense committed by a violator, depending on which controlled substance is involved. By virtue of its classification, sale or delivery of methaqualone is a felony. Section 893.13(2)(a)1. makes it unlawful for any person to "distribute or dispense" a controlled substance and section 893.13(2)(b) makes this offense a misdemeanor....
...constructions, the one which operates in favor of the life or liberty of the accused is to be preferred. See, e.g., Whitehurst v. State, 105 Fla. 574, 141 So. 878 (1932); Ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 So. 552 (1897). I would hold, therefore, that section 893.13 punishes the conduct at issue as a misdemeanor....
Copy

Little v. State, 77 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Cited 20 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18177, 2011 WL 5554812

...Rejecting the holding of Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs., 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) and State v. Washington, No. F11-11019 (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2011), we hold, as we explicitly did in Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) [1] , that section 893.13, as *723 amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 602 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1992).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1992 WL 171213

...STANCE WILL PASS TO HER CHILD AFTER BIRTH IS A VIOLATION OF FLORIDA LAW? Our jurisdiction is based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and we answer the certified question in the negative. The issue before the court is whether section 893.13(1)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), permits the criminal prosecution of a mother, who ingested a controlled substance prior to giving birth, for delivery of a controlled substance to the infant during the thirty to ninety seconds following the infant's birth, but before the umbilical cord is severed. Johnson presents four arguments attacking the applicability of section 893.13(1)(c)(1) to her conviction: 1) the district court's interpretation of the statute violates the legislature's intent; 2) the plain language of the statute prevents her conviction; 3) the conviction violates her constitutional rights of...
...o a minor, and that the conviction does not violate Johnson's constitutional rights. We adopt Judge Sharp's analysis concerning the insufficiency of the evidence to support Johnson's conviction and her analysis concerning the legislature's intent in section 893.13(1)(c)(1)....
...f the instant case, compels this Court to construe the statute in favor of Johnson. The text of Judge Sharp's dissent is as follows: Johnson appeals from two convictions for delivering a controlled substance to her two minor children in violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (1989)....
...sixty-to-ninety second period after they were expelled from her birth canal but before their cords were severed. The application of this statute to this concept of "delivery" presents a case of first impression in this state. Because I conclude that section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...the child was born which, of course, would probably have killed both herself and her child. This illustrates the absurdity of applying the delivery-of-a-drug statute to this scenario. However, in my view, the primary question in this case is whether section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...My review of other pertinent legislative enactments, specifically chapter 415, leads me to conclude in this case that the Legislature expressly chose to treat the problem of drug dependent mothers and newborns as a public health problem and that it considered but rejected imposing criminal sanctions, via section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...m. It also recommends that no punitive measures be taken against pregnant women who are users of illicit drugs when no other illegal acts, including drug-related offenses, have been committed. See 1990 Policy Statement. In summary, I would hold that section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...Therefore, we quash the decision below, answer the certified question in the negative, and remand with directions that Johnson's two convictions be reversed. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (1989) provides as follows: 893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties — * * * * * * (c) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to deliver any controlled substance to a person under the age of 18 years, or to use or hire a person un...
Copy

State v. Daophin, 533 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1988).

Cited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 110781

...State, 511 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to answer a certified question of great public importance. [1] We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Respondent Daophin was convicted of trafficking in cocaine by delivery in excess of 400 grams contrary to section 893.135(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1983). Relying on the authority of Butler v. State, 497 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the district court reversed because the trial court had refused to instruct the jury on simple possession of cocaine, section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...1984), as a lesser included offense. In doing so, the district court acknowledged that possession of cocaine was not a category one necessarily lesser included offense under Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases which were in effect at the time. Section 893.135(1)(b) reads as follows: (b) Any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine as described in s....
...g in possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine. The schedule of lesser included offenses, page 274, Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), recognized that instructions on lesser included (category one) offenses would be given as follows: (1) section 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture, or delivery is charged; (2) section 893.13(1)(d) if bringing cocaine into the state is charged; or (3) section 893.13(1)(e) if possession of cocaine is charged. [2] The state chose by its allegations to narrow the charge to trafficking by delivery only. In addition to the primary charge of trafficking by delivery of over 400 grams of cocaine (section 893.135(1)(b)3), the jury was instructed on three lesser included offenses: (1) trafficking by delivery of over 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine (section 893.135(1)(b)2); (2) trafficking by delivery of over 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine (section 893.135(1)(b)1); and (3) delivering 28 grams or less of cocaine (section 893.13(1)(a))....
...State, 461 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., dissent. NOTES [1] Daophin, 511 So.2d at 1038: MUST A JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON SIMPLE POSSESSION OF COCAINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHERE THE INFORMATION CHARGES TRAFFICKING BY DELIVERY [AND ONLY BY DELIVERY] IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN 400 GRAMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 893.135(1)(b)(3), FLORIDA STATUTES? [2] In Rotenberry v. State, 468 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1985), we held that §§ 893.13 and 893.135 addressed separate offenses and that crimes under the former section were not necessarily lesser included offenses under the latter section. Consequently, the standard jury instructions were then amended to provide that there were no necessarily lesser included offenses (category one) to § 893.135 and to reclassify the former category one offenses as category two, permissive lesser included offenses....
Copy

J.E. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Cited 19 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5989154, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18021

...Extrapolating another famous phrase from last century, sometimes love means "just say[ing] no.” See Nancy Reagan, Her Causes, Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library, http://www.reagan foundation. org/details_f. aspx?p=RR1008 NRHC&tx=6 (last visited on Nov. 1, 2013). . See, e.g., § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Willis v. State, 320 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Cited 18 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Appellant-defendant, Robert Allen Willis, appeals a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence for unlawful possession of barbiturates. We reverse. Appellant-defendant, Robert Allen Willis, was charged by information with unlawful possession of barbiturates in violation *824 of § 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes 1973....
...The defendant took the stand in his own behalf and generally denied all knowledge of the presence of the phenobarbitol in the apartment. The sole question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes 1973, provides: "It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice... ." Phenobarbital is a controlled substance. Section 893.02(3) and Section 893.03(4), Florida Statutes 1973. For the purposes of § 893.13(1)(e), actual possession exists where the accused has physical possession of the controlled substance and knowledge of such physical possession....
...From the foregoing we are of the opinion that the evidence presented by the state is not sufficient to present a jury issue on the question of the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the phenobarbital in the apartment. We determine that the state failed to make out a prima facie case under § 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal....
Copy

Scates v. State, 603 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1992).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1992 WL 171293

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We review State v. Scates, 585 So.2d 385, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the court certified the following question as being of great public importance: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF *505 THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. Scates pled guilty to purchasing one rock of cocaine from an undercover sheriff's deputy within 1000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...g treatment would be successful. The court placed Scates on two years' probation and ordered him to undergo drug rehabilitation pursuant to section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989). [1] The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed on the premise that section 893.13(1)(e)(1) required the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence of three years....
...Lane, 582 So.2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); State v. Baxter, 581 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), vacated on other grounds, Baxter v. Letts, 592 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1992); State v. Liataud, 587 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), review granted, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 1992). Section 893.13(1)(e)(1) provides that individuals convicted of manufacturing, selling, delivering, or purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school "shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years." The statute is intended to create a drug-free zone around Florida's schools, State v....
...nd Rehabilitative Services]... . If referred by the court, the referral may be in lieu of or in addition to final adjudication, imposition of any penalty or sentence, or any other similar action. We have the problem of reconciling the requirement of section 893.13(1)(e)(1) to impose a three-year sentence with the mandate of section 397.12 to find alternatives to prison for violations of chapter 893 where such alternatives would be more beneficial....
...in favor of the accused. See § 775.021, Fla. Stat. (1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 1989). On its face, section 397.12 applies to chapter 893, and this application is not limited by any other provision of chapter 397. Also, while section 893.13(1)(e) does call for a minimum three-year sentence, when read in conjunction with the other sentencing provisions of chapter 893, it does not absolutely preclude trial judges from exercising their discretion to reduce the sentence. Two other sections in chapter 893 contain mandatory minimum sentences. Sections 893.135 and 893.20, Florida Statutes (1989), provide that the minimum sentences contained therein shall "not be suspended, deferred, *506 or withheld." Also, sections 893.135 and 893.20 expressly refer to their sentences as "mandatory." There is no similar restriction in section 893.13(1)(e), and the word mandatory is not used. The omission of this language implies that the legislature intended a different construction, allowing trial judges greater discretion in sentencing decisions under section 893.13(1)(e)....
...se. The State argues that section 397.12 cannot apply here because it only relates to possession. See § 397.011(2), Fla. Stat. (1989); § 893.15, Fla. Stat. (1989) (expressly providing that chapter 397 is an alternative to sentencing under sections 893.13(1)(f) and (1)(g) (applying to possession of drugs))....
...l amount of cocaine for personal use. The State also cites the rule that when construing two competing statutes, the later promulgated statute should prevail as the last expression of the legislature's intent. Thus, the minimum mandatory sentence in section 893.13(1)(e) should prevail because that statute was enacted after section 397.12....
...In this case, application of a mandatory minimum sentence would not further the legislative goal of providing alternatives to incarceration for drug addicts with a chance at meaningful rehabilitation. Accordingly, we hold that trial judges may refer a defendant convicted under section 893.13(1)(e)(1) to a drug abuse program pursuant to section 397.12 rather than impose a minimum three-year sentence....
...Section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989), authorizing the referral of those convicted of a violation of chapter 893 to a drug treatment program, was enacted in 1973 at a time when mandatory minimum sentences *507 were unknown except in capital cases. Ch. 73-75, Laws of Fla. In 1987, the legislature first passed section 893.13(1)(e), specifically prohibiting the commission of drug crimes within 1000 feet of a school. Ch. 87-243, Laws of Fla. Two years later, section 893.13(1)(e) was amended to provide that violators, with respect to certain controlled substances (including cocaine) "shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years and shall not be eligible for parole or statutory gain-time under s....
...While the statute could have used the word "mandatory" and could have provided that the sentence not be "suspended, deferred or withheld," can there be any doubt what the legislature intended? The accepted rules of statutory construction all lead to the same conclusion. Section 397.12 and section 893.13(1)(e)(1) are in facial conflict. Therefore, the later statute, which is section 893.13(1)(e), should prevail as the last expression of legislative will....
...In such a case, the more narrowly drawn statute operates as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute. Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987). Thus, the more narrowly drawn section 893.13(1)(e) controls over the more general provisions of section 397.12. This conclusion is further supported by section 893.15, Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in language paralleling section 397.12 that "[a]ny person who violates s. 893.13(1)(f) or (1)(g) relating to possession may, in the discretion of the trial judge, be required to participate in a drug rehabilitation program." (Footnote omitted.) Why would this statute exist if it were not intended to specify which violat...
...gible for referral to a drug treatment program? See State v. Edwards, 456 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (when violations of section 893 transpire, the trial court's authority to exercise its discretion under section 397.12 is limited to violations of section 893.13 relating to possession)....
Copy

Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 18 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 108899

...Defendant argues that under the habitual felony offender statute, the trial judge must not only make a finding of fact that a prior conviction exists, but also must find that the conviction was for a qualified offense committed within five years, was not for a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), and had not been vacated, or the defendant pardoned....
Copy

Nguyen v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008).

Cited 17 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 WL 250448

...He was held in jail for about five hours. When he was released at the end of the day, Dr. Nguyen still did not know why he had been arrested. Dr. Nguyen later learned that he had been arrested for six counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), which makes it a crime to deliver a controlled substance “[e]xcept as authorized by this chapter.” That chapter of the Florida Code authorizes medical doctors to dispense or prescribe controlled substances “in good faith and in the course of his or her professional practice only.” Fla....
...Nguyen had delivered Lortab and Valium, which contain the controlled substances hydrocodone and diazepam, “to a confidential source by use of a written order for said drug[s] not issued in good faith and in the course of his professional practice, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a)(2).” The not in good faith and not in medical practice elements were more specifically 5 described in the affidavit underlying the warrant....
Copy

McKinney v. State, 640 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Cited 17 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 390761

...The bag was retrieved and later introduced into evidence. The marked twenty-dollar bill was found on the dumpster. [2] I. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SCHOOL Mr. McKinney first argues the trial court erred in taking judicial notice that Lakeland Christian School is a school for purposes of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). Cf. Rodriguez v. State, 559 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (implying that such polling before an Allen instruction may be per se reversible error). Reversed and remanded. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Kelly v. State, 593 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Cited 17 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 619

...The court having then voted to a six-to-six tie, the cause reverts to the original panel. Fla.R.App.P. 9.331(a). We grant rehearing and substitute the following for the opinion dated June 19, 1991: The appellant was arrested for purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...itutes manufacture under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1989). [1] Certainly, as Judge Letts wrote in the dissent from our original opinion, there is more to this reconstitution *1062 process than "simply adding hot water to instant coffee grounds." Section 893.13 provides several exclusions from its application for police officers acting in the course of their duties, but these exclusions apply only and specifically to the possession and delivery of controlled substances. See § 893.13(5), Fla....
Copy

Mills v. State, 822 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2002).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 1338538

...rms did not apply to such felonies). As section 775.084 itself reflects, the Legislature has exempted certain offenses from the ambit of the habitual felony offender statute, as demonstrated by its partial exclusion of felonies committed pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance). See § 775.084(1)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2001) (specifically exempting those convicted of "purchase or possession of a controlled substance," pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes, from a habitual offender sentence); see also Wilson v....
...ther sentence that is imposed as a result of a prior conviction for a felony or other qualified offense, whichever is later. 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

United States v. Tywan Hill, 799 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015).

Cited 16 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15060, 2015 WL 5023791

...offenses” under the ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). In response to Hill’s objections to the presentence investigation report, the government contended that Hill’s 1999 cocaine sale/delivery conviction, in violation of Florida Statutes section 893.13(1)(a)(1), and his 2008 cocaine trafficking conviction, in violation of Florida Statutes section 893.135(1)(b)(1), were ACCA-qualifying “serious drug offenses.” At sentencing, the district court did not address whether Hill’s prior drug convictions were serious drug offenses....
Copy

Mondesir v. State, 814 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Cited 15 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 561685

...Butterworth, Attorney General and Frank J. Ingrassia (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and FLETCHER, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. Mondesir was on probation in case number 99-12867 for one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999) and one count of sale, manufacture, or delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), when he committed and was convicted in case number 00-687 of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), (count I), kidnaping with a firearm in viola...
Copy

United States v. Paul Kenneth Pridgeon, 853 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2017).

Cited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2017 WL 1337221, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6251

...several Florida felony offenses. In 1997, Pridgeon was convicted of resisting an officer with violence. And in 2006, Pridgeon was convicted of sale or delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, in violation of § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes....
...6 Case: 15-15739 Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Page: 7 of 18 substance offenses” within the meaning of the career offender provisions. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). In his response, Pridgeon argued that his convictions under § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes cannot serve as predicate offenses under the career offender guideline because § 893.13 allows for a conviction regardless of whether the defendant knew that the substance possessed was an illicit controlled substance. Pridgeon acknowledged that this Court rejected that same argument in United States v....
...Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014), but he maintained that Smith was wrongly decided. In the alternative, Pridgeon argued that the United States Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) exceeded its statutory authority by treating crimes like those in § 893.13, which do not require mens rea as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance, as predicate “controlled substance offenses.” At the sentencing hearing on December 4, 2015, Pridgeon reiterated his objections to the career...
...counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense. Id. § 4B1.2(b) (emphasis added). B. Pridgeon’s Florida Drug Convictions Qualify First, Pridgeon maintains that his convictions under § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes cannot qualify as predicate “controlled substance offenses” under the career offender provisions because that Florida statute does not include a mens rea 10 ...
...Filed: 04/12/2017 Page: 11 of 18 element as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance.1 Pridgeon contends that, because all of the controlled substance offenses listed in § 994(h) require such a mens rea element, an offense under § 893.13 cannot be the equivalent of an offense “described in” those federal analogues and, thus, cannot be a “controlled substance offense” under the sentencing guidelines. Specifically, § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes provides that it is unlawful for a person to “sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. § 893.13. And § 893.101 of the Florida Statutes provides that “knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element” of a § 893.13 offense....
...§ 893.101(2). Construing the sentencing guidelines and their applicability to the same Florida statute, in Smith we considered and rejected the argument Pridgeon espouses. Like Pridgeon, the defendant in Smith was subject to the career offender increase based on prior controlled substance convictions under § 893.13....
...does not require that a predicate state drug offense include an element of mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Id. at 1268. In Smith, we properly declined to look to statutory federal analogues in considering § 893.13 because we found that the sentencing guidelines did not define “controlled substance offense” by reference to those analogues and the sentencing guidelines definition was unambiguous....
... Case: 15-15739 Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Page: 13 of 18 exceeded its authority in defining “controlled substance offense” in § 4B1.2— which claim we review in detail and reject below. Thus, we conclude that Pridgeon’s convictions under § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes qualify as predicate “controlled substance offenses” for purposes of the career offender enhancement. C. The Definition of “Controlled Substance Offense” Comports with the Commission’s Statutory Authority Second, Pridgeon argues that, if Smith is correct that § 4B1.2(b) of the sentencing guidelines does include offenses under § 893.13 of the Florida Statutes in its definition of “controlled substance offense,” the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating § 4B1.2. Specifically, by treating crimes without an element of mens rea as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance, like those in § 893.13, as “controlled substance offenses,” Pridgeon claims that the Commission acted outside the express directives of 28 U.S.C....
...According to Pridgeon, the federal offenses listed in § 994(h) require a showing that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Pridgeon points out that, under Smith and our own interpretation of the sentencing guidelines definition of “controlled substance offense,” a conviction under § 893.13, which does not include such a mens rea element, qualifies as a controlled substance offense....
...category, rather than a ceiling. See United States v. Parson, 955 F.2d 858, 867 (3d Cir. 1992) abrogated on other grounds by Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008). Consequently, Pridgeon’s reliance on any alleged incongruity between § 893.13 and the offenses described in § 994(h) is misplaced. 16 Case: 15-15739 Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Page: 17 of 18 As we held in Weir, § 994(a) vests the Commission with...
...“controlled substance offense” to include crimes beyond those listed in § 994(h). More fundamentally, Pridgeon’s statutory-authority argument is little more than a veiled attempt to circumvent our prior panel precedent in Smith, which squarely held that a § 893.13 offense qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” despite the fact that the Florida legislature elided the element of mens rea as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance....
...idgeon’s sentence totaling eighty-four months’ imprisonment. AFFIRMED. Ultimately, we need not, and do not, decide the precise mens rea requirements of the federal drug statutes listed in § 994(h) because a conviction under § 893.13 constitutes a “controlled substance offense” under the definition in § 4B1.2 of the sentencing guidelines....
Copy

Trainor v. State, 468 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Cited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1173

...ine and possession of cocaine and marijuana. We affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing. As her first point defendant contends that in one case she was wrongly convicted of both delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine, violations of section 893.13(1)(a)(1) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983). The basis for her contention is that, although the caption of the information charged her with delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, the body of the information charged her with delivery of cannabis and possession of cocaine....
Copy

State v. Baxley, 684 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 648285

...ed substance is involved in the transaction. We answer in the affirmative and reverse the order dismissing the charges below. Michael Baxley was charged with conspiracy to traffic and trafficking in hydrocodone. In order to sustain this charge under section 893.135(1)(c)1, there must be 4 grams or more of the substance or "4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance..." But if a tablet contains no more than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone along with other active ingredients which are not controlled substances, then under section 893.03(3)(c)4 such tablet is a SCHEDULE III substance and, under section 893.13(1)(a), its sale, manufacture or delivery (or the possession with such intent) is a third degree felony....
...construe them so as to preserve the force of both without destroying their evident intent). If the number of tablets aggregates 4 grams or more of hydrocodone or a mixture of hydrocodone, then we agree with the State that prosecution is proper under section 893.135....
Copy

Dwight Dion Donawa v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013).

Cited 13 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 5944045, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22635

...Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 12-13526 Date Filed: 11/07/2013 Page: 2 of 14 an aggravated felony. We must decide whether a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) for the possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver is, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking aggravated felony....
...Donawa is a native and citizen of Antigua who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 26, 1985. On June 8, 2009 he was convicted in Florida state court of two charges: (1) possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2); and (2) possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Fla....
...Alternatively, and most important for this appeal, he argued that he was at the very least eligible for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The IJ rejected Mr. Donawa’s arguments, finding him removable and also ineligible for cancellation of removal as a matter of law because Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) is a drug trafficking crime, and so an aggravated felony....
...1/07/2013 Page: 4 of 14 aggravated felon, and therefore ineligible for discretionary relief. 1 The basis of the BIA’s decision further limits the scope of our review because it rested entirely on his cannabis conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2)....
...Donawa’s conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia has on his eligibility for cancellation of removal. That issue is therefore not before us on this appeal. Rather, the question before us is simply this: whether Mr. Donawa’s conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), as amended by Fla....
...013 Page: 5 of 14 including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Thus, the question before us can be broken down into two distinct issues: (1) whether a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) constitutes a “drug trafficking crime”; and (2) if not, whether it falls into the broader category of “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” In resolving each of these questions, courts apply a categorical or modified categorical approach, depending on the statutory scheme....
...as an aggravated felony cannot invoke the modified categorical approach to look beyond the fact of conviction. Id. at 2293. A. This is not the first time we have been called upon to consider whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) qualifies as an aggravated felony....
...knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession. See United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012). B. The first—and, given the posture of this case, only—question we consider is whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) is, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking crime as defined in 18 U.S.C....
...The answer is that it is not. 8 Case: 12-13526 Date Filed: 11/07/2013 Page: 9 of 14 Under the categorical approach, it is clear that the “least of the acts criminalized” by Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) does not necessarily violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). A person could be convicted under the Florida statute without any knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession. That same person could not be convicted of the federal crime. There can be no argument, therefore, that Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), as amended by Fla....
...The government argues that, while the basic offense does not include a mens rea element with respect to the nature of the substance, the affirmative defense defined by Fla. Stat. § 893.101 effectively creates a separate offense under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) that does include that mens rea element....
...nawa raised any affirmative defense during his criminal trial.” The analytical approach the government asks us to apply is therefore not only contrary to Supreme Court precedent, but also unavailing. We therefore conclude that Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), as amended by Fla. Stat....
...For us to do so on this record would be unwise. The BIA never considered whether Mr. Donawa’s cannabis conviction constituted an illicit trafficking aggravated felony. 5 Rather, it based its decision entirely on what we now know is the erroneous conclusion that Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) is a drug trafficking aggravated felony....
...an illicit trafficking offense punishable as a felony under federal law. See Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1685. III. The BIA erred in finding that, as a matter of law, a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), as amended by Fla....
Copy

Ellis v. State, 816 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 906172

...t officer offense (count III), a violation of section 784.03(1)(b), resisting arrest with violence offense (count IV), a violation of section 843.01, and criminal mischief offense (count V), a violation of section 806.13(1)(a), because these are not section 893.13 enumerated offenses as set forth in section 948.034(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...t he was sentenced pursuant to subsection (1)(a), not subsection (2) as asserted by Appellant. [1] The State asserts that unlike subsection (2), there is no requirement in subsection (1)(a) that a defendant have committed an enumerated offense under section 893.13 for sentencing to drug offender probation. Section 948.034, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998) provides in pertinent part: (1) On or after October 1, 1993, any person who violates s. 893.13(1)(a)1., (1)(c)2., (1)(d)2., (2)(a)1., or (5)(a) may, in the discretion of the trial court, be required to successfully complete a term of probation in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment as required or authorized by s. 775.084, former s. 921.001, or s. 921.002, as follows: (a) If the person has not previously been convicted of violating s. 893.13(1)(a)1., (1)(c)2., (1)(d)2., (2)(a)1., or (5)(a), adjudication may be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 18 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 90 days.... (b) If the person has been previously convicted of one felony violation of s. 893.13(1)(a)1., (1)(c)2., (1)(d)2., (2)(a)1., or (5)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 24 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 180 days.... . . . (2) On or after October 1, 1993, any person who violates s. 893.13(1)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a) may, in the discretion of the trial court, be required to successfully complete a term of probation in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment as required or authorized by s. 775.084, former s. 921.001, or s. 921.002, as follows: (a) If the person has not previously been convicted of violating s. 893.13(1)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may be withheld and the offender shall be placed on probation for not less than 12 months, as a condition of which the court may require the offender to comply with one or more of the following terms and conditions ... (b) If the person has been previously convicted of one felony violation of s. 893.13(1)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 18 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 90 days.......
...can be made a part of those forms of supervision. Section 948.01(13), Florida Statutes (2001) specifically provides: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), the court may either adjudge the defendant guilty or stay and withhold the adjudication of guilt; and, in either case, it may stay and withhold the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on drug offender probation. § 948.10(13), Fla.Statute (2001). This provision appears to restrict its use to violations of section 893.13....
...I agree with the majority that this provision is limited to enumerated crimes under chapter 893, but this is not the provision under which the defendant was sentenced. Thus, while a sentence under 948.01(13) or 948.034 may be restricted to violations of chapter 893.13, I see no reason why a trial court cannot use the more intensive form of supervision defined by section 948.011(4) known as "drug offender probation." I would therefore affirm that part of his sentence....
Copy

Kutzorik v. State, 891 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 176413

...nd with directions to discharge her. ALTENBERND, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur. NOTES [1] Kutzorik was charged with one count of possession of cannabis with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver and one count of manufacture of cannabis, under section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). She was not charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, § 893.13(6)(b), based on the marijuana cigarette butt she gave to the officer....
Copy

Fequiere v. Ashcroft, 279 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002).

Cited 13 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2002 WL 99443

...be deported under section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1999), because, in 1986, he had committed an aggravated felony, the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.13 (West 2000)....
...previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if . . . since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony. . . .” Appellant’s 1986 conviction for violating Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.13 constituted an aggravated felony under the Uniform Controlled Substance Act....
...oved the issue of appellant’s admission status from the case. Accordingly, the only question to be decided by the immigration judge was whether appellant had been convicted of the offense cited in the order to show cause, a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13. 4 to show cause....
Copy

Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Cited 12 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18981, 2011 WL 5964337

POLEN, J. Herman Maestas appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)....
...The trial court sentenced him to 27.3 months in prison. On appeal, he argues (1) the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection based on improper impeachment; (2) the trial court erroneously imposed various costs and fees; and (3) the statute under which he was convicted, section 893.13, is facially unconstitutional....
...l. Although the trial court lowered this fee to $15 in its order, the order was untimely rendered, and thus a nullity. We therefore remand for entry of a new order consistent with this opinion. Maestas next argues for the first time on appeal 2 that section 893.13 is facially unconstitutional for the reasons expressed in Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011). Maestas further argues that if section 893.13 is not unconstitutional, it is a strict liability crime, with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. We disagree and uphold the constitutionality of section 893.13 and conclude that section 893.101 does not create a strict liability crime. We find the reasoning of Shelton unpersuasive and decline to adopt its holding. In Shelton , a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida found section 893.13 to be unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds. Shelton, 802 F.Supp.2d at 1296-98 , 2011 WL 3236040 at *4-*5. The opinion concluded that section 893.101 removed all mens rea as an element from section 893.13, thereby creating a strict liability offense. Id. As a strict liability offense, the court declared section 893.13 unconstitutional because its penalties are too severe....
...Dwyer, 382 So.2d 333, 334-35 (Fla.1976); Bradshaw v. State, 286 So.2d 4, 6-7 (Fla. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 , 94 S.Ct. 2626 , 41 L.Ed.2d 225 (1974). We find Shelton unpersuasive, as the decision is based on the faulty premise that section 893.101 removed all mens rea from section 893.13 offenses, such that a defendant is strictly liable for any unknowing possession or delivery. In our view, section 893.101 did not remove the guilty knowledge element from these offenses, thereby converting section 893.13 offenses into strict liability crimes. Instead, it merely abrogated the additional “knowledge of illicit nature” element, added by the supreme court in Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996). Section 893.13 remains constitutional....
...dispense with scienter, courts will assume guilty knowledge is required and will read a guilty knowledge component into a statute that is silent as to mens rea. Id. at 515-20 . Although knowledge of presence is not expressly required by the text of section 893.13, such knowledge has always been required in drug possession cases. Id.; State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 893.13 is no exception....
...Indeed, the standard jury instruction for possession of a controlled substance requires the jury find that “([defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.2. In Chicone , the court recognized that “guilty knowledge” is required for a conviction under section 893.13 and that knowledge of presence must be established in a drug possession cases....
...knowledge as an affirmative defense.” Wright, 920 So.2d at 24 (emphasis added). The statute does not indicate any intent to do away with all guilty knowledge or to remove knowledge of presence as an element. As such, “[a] defendant charged under section 893.13 can concede all the elements of the offense, i.e., possession of a specific substance and knowledge of the presence of the substance, and still be able to assert the defense that he did not know of the illicit nature of the specific substance.” Burnette v....
...The State must prove knowledge of presence in order to establish actual or constructive possession. 3 Thus, the permissive presumption that a defendant knew the illicit nature of the substance does not apply if a defendant is unaware of the presence of the substance. Section 893.13 offenses are general intent crimes and, although not expressly stated in the statute, require that the defendant voluntarily commit the proscribed act....
...f the controlled substance”). Furthermore, because lack of knowledge is not a defense to a true strict liability crime, the availability of the affirmative defense in section 893.101 undermines the essential premise in Shelton that the offenses in section 893.13 are strict liability crimes that may not be constitutionally punished as felonies. Id. at 140-41 (footnote omitted). We hold that section 893.101 did not remove scienter from section 893.13 offenses and did not create an unconstitutional strict liability crime....
Copy

State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2400879, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10401

ROTHENBERG, J. On May 17, 2006, this Court issued its opinion in Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review denied, 952 So.2d 1191 (Fla.2007), rejecting Taylor’s facial constitutional challenge to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2003), as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2003)....
...his Court; reject the trial court’s conclusion that it was bound by the federal trial court’s decision; and agree with counsel for both the appellant and the appellees that the trial court’s analysis and reasoning is flawed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Section 893.13 prohibits the unauthorized possession, purchase, sale, manufacture, or delivery of a controlled substance; and the possession with intent to purchase, sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance....
...State, 901 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On July 27, 2011, a federal trial court judge issued a ruling in Shelton v. Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), finding that although lack of knowledge is an affirmative defense to the offenses in section 893.13, because the statute does not include knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance as an element of the offense, the statute creates strict liability crimes....
...The “presumption” relied on by the trial court was that although this Court in Taylor and the other district courts, such as the First District in Johnson and Harris , the Second District in Burnette , and the Fourth District in Wright , rejected facial challenges to the constitutionality of section 893.13, as amended by section .893.101, on due process grounds, none of these cases “particularizes the source of due process upon which it relies.” Thus, the trial court reasoned: - In the absence of such particularization I am obligated as a Florida trial court to presume that Florida appellate courts relied upon a Florida-law-based guarantee of due process.... No Florida case has decided the issue presently before me: whether § 893.13 is unconstitutional by operation of the Hth Amendment to the Federal Constitution....
...ation.... [T]he federal Constitution ... represents the floor for basic freedoms; the state constitution, the ceiling. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 17 (Fla.2000) (quoting Traylor, 596 So.2d at 962 ). Thus, if this Court concluded in Taylor that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, did not violate Florida constitutional due process guarantees, then it necessarily follows that the amended statute also passed federal constitutional due process muster....
...trial court, instead, incorrectly concluded it was bound by an order issued by a federal trial court, and even if not bound, found the federal order persuasive. Specifically, the trial court found persuasive the Shelton court’s findings that: (1) section 893.13, as amended, creates strict liability crimes; (2) the due process challenge to section 893.13 must be analyzed under Staples ; and (3) the statute fails under the Staples test. As was the federal trial court’s order, the circuit court trial judge’s analysis and conclusions are similarly flawed. 1. Section 893.13, as amended, does not create strict liability crimes. In its order, the trial court boldly states: “[T]hat § 893.13 defines strict liability crimes is really not open to discussion.” The trial court is incorrect....
...activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree.” These statutes do not require the State to prove the defendant’s knowledge of the minor’s age, and ignorance or belief as to the minor’s age is no defense. Section 893.13 does not create strict liability crimes because, although scienter, or “mens rea,” is not an element of these offenses, the statute provides that the defendant’s lack of knowledge may be raised as an affirmative defense....
...aurie L., Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes, 78 Cornell L. Rev. 401 , 417 & n. 86 (1993) (defining strict liability as “absolute liability” where not only is there no mens rea element, there also is no mens rea defense). Section 893.13, instead, creates general intent crimes....
...and, second, it allows a defendant to assert lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense.”). Because, the premise upon which the trial judge relied was incorrect, so too was his analysis. 2. The analysis performed in Staples and the trial court are inapplicable to section 893.13. As counsel for the defendants candidly concedes on appeal, the Staples analysis applied by the Shelton court and relied on by the trial court has no applicability in analyzing section 893.13 under the defendants’ constitutional due process challenge. Unlike section 893.13, the Staples Court was tasked with the responsibility of construing a statute that was silent concerning the mens rea required to violate the statute....
...The Staples “test” was crafted to assist courts in interpreting legislative intent when a statute is unclear as to whether mens rea is an element of the offense, not to analyze the constitutionality of a statute. Because the legislative intent in section 893.13 is clear, the Staples test is inapplicable, and the trial court’s lengthy analysis of the statute under Staples was erroneous. THE DEFENDANTS’ DUE PROCESS CHALLENGE In Taylor , this Court previously upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13, as amended, in a facial challenge brought under due process concerns identical to those raised in the thirty-nine motions filed in the trial court below and raised here on appeal....
...739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Clearly, in most situations, the defendant is fully aware that the substance he is manufacturing, purchasing, selling, or has in his possession, is *190 a controlled substance, and, therefore, a facial challenge to section 893.13 should fail under a Salerno analysis....
Copy

State v. Gethers, 585 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 181514

...We note in passing that House Bill 536, another unsuccessful attempt at criminalizing the birth of a drug dependent newborn, never made it out of committee. Id. at 881-882. In Johnson v. State, 578 So.2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the majority concluded the appellant mother was guilty of violating section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...cifically chapter 415, leads me to conclude in this case that the Legislature expressly chose to treat the problem of drug dependent mothers and newborns as a public health problem and that it considered but rejected imposing criminal sanctions, via section 893.13(1)(c)1....
Copy

Munroe v. State, 514 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. FRANK, Judge. Martha B. Munroe seeks to overcome the trial court's judgment and sentence stemming from a jury verdict in which she was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in an amount of cocaine exceeding 400 grams, conduct violative of section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...e of $250,000. Munroe's scoresheet calculation produced a presumptive sentence of 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. Rule 3.701(d)(9) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure required the trial court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. See § 893.135(1)(b)(3), Fla....
...g., Atwaters v. State, 495 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the trial court's bases for departure are invalid. The quantity of cocaine Munroe anticipated acquiring, notwithstanding it did not pass into her possession, is a valid reason for departure. Section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that the punishment for conspiracy to commit the prohibited act is the same as if the act had been committed....
...State v. Wimberly, 498 So.2d 929, 932 (Fla. 1986). The trial court, however, did not err in rejecting the requested instruction. Munroe was charged in the information *401 with conspiracy to traffic in more than 400 grams of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes (1985). We take as an ingredient in her theory that because a standard jury instruction in effect at the time of her trial, designates the possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e) as a necessarily lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine, an alleged conspiracy to possess cocaine in an amount constituting "trafficking" required an instruction on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine. [2] Munroe's approach is bottomed upon sections 777.04(3) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...The general conspiracy statute, § 777.04(3), creates a distinct crime and is designed to punish "whoever agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense... ." The mere possession of contraband in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, exposes to prosecution any person "in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained." On the other hand, the crime of conspiring to "traffic"...
...g with another "who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4 or any mixture containing cocaine... ." § 893.135(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). A significant difference exists between section 893.135(1)(b) and section 893.13(1)(e)....
...It is readily apparent without reference to graphic examples that a conspiracy to traffic within the state can be achieved without the conspirators ever coming into either actual or constructive possession of the contraband. A conspiracy to violate section 893.13(1)(e), however, is wholly dependent upon some form of possession being within the conspirators' capability....
...After its effective date of July 1, 1981, this schedule will be an authoritative compilation upon which a trial judge should be able to confidently rely. (emphasis supplied) Under the schedule of lesser included offenses, in effect at the time of the appellant's trial, possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e) was designated as a category 1 necessarily lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine as proscribed by section 893.135(1)(b)....
...[1] Rotenberry v. State, 429 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding: [W]e conclude that the legislature did not intend the charge of trafficking in cocaine to encompass possession and sale as lesser included offenses.... Section 893.135 [trafficking] is sufficiently different from the provisions of section 893.13 to allow multiple punishments at the same trial because the state need not prove a violation of 893.13(1)(a) [sale, manufacture, or delivery], (d) [bringing into the state] and (e) [possession], but only violation of at least one of those provisions....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 569 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 172827

...f cocaine with the intent to sell, it would appear that the state *874 would have to show prima facie evidence that Johnson: 1. Possessed cocaine; 2. Knew it was cocaine; and 3. Had the intent to sell the cocaine. [1] See Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 893.13(1)(a)....
...uisites of the statute, and we would be required to affirm it but for our resolution of the corpus delicti issue. Because the trial court is directed on remand to enter judgment of conviction for simple possession which is a third-degree felony, see § 893.13(1)(f), rather than the second-degree felony of possession with intent to sell, see § 893.13(1)(a)1, Johnson is required to be resentenced under section 775.084(4)(b)3 [3] to a term of years not exceeding ten, without eligibility for release for five years....
Copy

As v. State, 693 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 264945

...A small zip-lock baggie containing a green substance was found in appellant's wallet. The substance was later positively identified by authorities as marijuana. Appellant was charged with committing a delinquent act based on the offense of possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 673 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 252230

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Aubin Wade Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. SHAHOOD, Judge. Appellant, Carrington Thomas, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence on a charge of sale of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Cox v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 775584

...onal peremptory challenges. We affirm in part and reverse in part. On January 12, 1999, appellant was charged in a two-count information with: Count I—sale, manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school, contrary to section 893.13(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes; and Count II—actual or constructive possession of cocaine contrary to the provisions of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes....
...The standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Lee v. State, 745 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), citing Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954 (Fla.1996). The statute applicable, section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (c) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substa...
...linquency finding). In State v. Edwards, 581 So.2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the state appealed the trial court's dismissal of a charge that Edwards purchased cocaine within 1,000 feet of the Lauderdale Manor Christian Learning Center in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...e pre-K or nursery school level, and one student was learning at the first grade level. The court found that application of the common meaning of "elementary school" to the case revealed that Lauderdale Manor was an elementary school for purposes of section 893.13(1)(e)....
...nd ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. In McKinney v. State, 640 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the court approved the trial court's judicial notice that Lakeland Christian School is a school for purposes of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes, finding such notice authorized by section 90.202(11) and (12). The court noted that it had published at least one opinion in which Lakeland Christian School had been the school relied upon for a conviction under section 893.13(1)(c)....
...house confirming a status that no one seriously contests." See id. Appellant in this case concedes the state presented evidence which established that two years before the offense charged, the Academy of Excellence was a school within the meaning of section 893.13(1)(c)....
Copy

Kickasola v. State, 405 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ. NESBITT, Judge. The defendant appeals her judgment of conviction for possession with intent to sell methaqualudes contrary to Section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1979) [Count I]; and actual or constructive possession of methaqualudes contrary to Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1979) [Count II]. As to Count I, which charged the defendant with possession with intent to sell, Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) provides in pertinent part: 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. [emphasis supplied] Count I did not charge the defendant with the mere sale of methaqualudes. Likewise, in Count II, the defendant was charged pursuant to Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), which in pertinent part provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance .......
Copy

GRA v. State, 688 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 97158

...orderly conduct charge from one year to a maximum of six months, but may reimpose one year terms for the first degree misdemeanors. DISPOSITIONS VACATED and MATTER REMANDED. COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 877.03, Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] § 893.13(6), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Gibbs v. State, 676 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 332345

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. EN BANC FARMER, Judge. Because of a conflict in our published decisions on the issue whether a defendant can be separately punished for multiple offenses under sections 893.13 and 893.135, Florida Statutes (1991), we have granted review en banc to harmonize them....
...possession of the same drugs without violating double jeopardy rights. See also Rozier v. State, 620 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 135 (Fla.1993), in which the court held that double jeopardy concerns prevent conviction under both section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes, possession of controlled substance, and section 951.22, Florida Statutes, which makes unlawful both the introduction into or possession of contraband upon the grounds of a detention facility....
...with intent to sell cocaine and sale of cocaine arising out of a single transaction and involving the same substance); State v. Stenson, 587 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1991). Sale and possession with intent to sell are alternate forms of conduct proscribed by section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...d distinct if each offense can possibly be committed without committing the other offense." [9] The supreme court followed this approach in McCloud without citing to Baker. Under the McCloud/Baker analysis, possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), is "separate" from trafficking in cocaine under section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991) because trafficking by sale can possibly be committed without possession....
...For the purposes of this opinion, however, we assume that the two quantities of cocaine were from a common source. [2] Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [3] Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987). [4] Section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part that: "Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine, as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4. or of any mixture containing cocaine, but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine or any such mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as `trafficking in cocaine.'" [5] Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part that: "It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pu...
...ting in the course of his professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter." This provision has since been renumbered in the current statutory compilation as section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...To the extent that it conflicts, we simply certify conflict. [8] "Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). "Sale" and "possession with intent to sell" were alternative conduct elements of section 893.13(1)(a) throughout the decade of the 1980's, when cases like State v. Stenson were wending their way to the supreme court. See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Harris v. State, 610 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 355231

...His failure to report and to make an appointment was more the result of miscommunication or confusion than a deliberate act of misconduct. We therefore reverse the order of revocation and remand for the reinstatement of the appellant's community control. Reversed and remanded. PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)1., Fla....
Copy

Paccione v. State, 698 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1997).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1997 WL 476098

...placed twice in jeopardy for the same criminal offense. The district court affirmed both convictions on the authority of Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), in which the Fourth District held that dual convictions for violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), [3] do not violate double jeopardy....
...For the reasons stated, we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the district court decision, [6] and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in relevant part: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. [2] Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in relevant part: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance... Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree.... [3] This provision is now codified at section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4859, 2010 WL 1445188

...nable hypothesis of innocence, an issue of fact for the jury to decide based on competent substantial evidence). "Proof of possession of a controlled substance may be actual or constructive." Taylor v. State, 13 So.3d 77, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Livingston v. State, 682 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 604181

...State, 501 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Finally, the court erred in habitualizing Livingston for the possession of cocaine charge which was a concurrent sentence imposed with the sale of cocaine charge. When a defendant is being sentenced for a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), regarding possession or purchase of a controlled substance, the trial court cannot impose a habitual felony offender sentence for the possession conviction....
Copy

State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18194, 2009 WL 4111210

...ify the patient or withhold such records until a warrant is presented, the order granting the motion to suppress is reversed. *800 The police investigator obtained the records at issue while investigating a suspected "doctor shopping" violation. See § 893.13(7)(a)8., Fla....
Copy

Bell v. State, 411 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...Bell appealed contending the trial court erred in sentencing him on all three counts. We agree and vacate the two sentences for the sale and possession of controlled substances. [2] *320 Anyone who knowingly sells or is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of illegal drugs is guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs. § 893.135(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1979). Trafficking may be proven either by the sale or by the possession of illegal drugs. Section 893.13(1)(a) prohibits the sale of a controlled substance and section 893.13(1)(e) prohibits the actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance....
...It seems to me, however, that Monroe and Hegstrom are in conflict with the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. COWART, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The statutory offense of "trafficking in illegal drugs," § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...omer of morphine or opium, including heroin. A charge of a violation of this statutory offense necessarily includes, as lesser included offenses involving a lesser quantity of the same controlled substances, both the statutory offense of possession, § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1979), and the statutory offense of sale, § 893.13(1)(a)1., Fla....
...tutional law, one and "the same offense." Accordingly, I would affirm the conviction and sentence as to the trafficking offense and reverse the convictions, as well as the sentences, relating to both the possession and the sale offenses. NOTES [1] §§ 893.13(1)(a), 893.13(1)(e), 893.135(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1979). [2] §§ 893.13(1)(a), 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Carle v. State, 983 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2276285

...The appellant, Kenneth Carle, was charged with one count each of sale or delivery of a controlled substance (diazepam); possession of a controlled substance (diazepam) with intent to sell or deliver; possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis; and possession of drug paraphernalia. See §§ 893.13, 893.13(1)(a), 893.13(6)(b), and 893.147(1), Florida Statutes....
...am with intent to sell was per se reversible error, because, under rule 3.510(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, simple possession is a necessarily included offense of possession with intent to sell. Where a defendant is charged with violating section 893.13(1)(a) by possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell, a lesser included instruction on simple possession is required to be given if requested....
...But the state maintains that simple possession of diazepam is not a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell diazepam, because both charges are third-degree felonies and carry the same penalty. The state charged the defendant with possession of diazepam with intent to sell, which violates section 893.13(1)(a)(2), because diazepam is a schedule IV controlled substance under section 893.03(4)(p)....
...Thus, the charged crime was a third-degree, level three felony under the offense severity ranking chart in section 921.0022(3)(c). The same severity level and felony degree attaches to simple possession of a controlled substance, which is a violation of section 893.13(6)(a)....
Copy

Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 192011

...The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed: * * * b. Within 5 years of the date of the conviction of the defendant's last prior felony or other qualified offense.... 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance .......
...By its terms, subsection (1)(a)3 creates two exemptions from the operation of the habitual offender statute. The first exemption pertains to the nature of the crime for which the enhanced sentence is to be imposed. Section 775.084(1)(a)3 prohibits the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence for a violation of section 893.13 "relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." A defendant who is convicted of a drug offense falling within this category is ineligible for a habitual felony offender sentence, regardless of the nature of the prior crimes used to establish the predicate for an enhanced sentence....
...he nature of the offense alone. For example, a defendant convicted of trafficking or sale of cocaine would be eligible for a habitual felony offender sentence, because the statute forbids habitualization only if the subject offense is a violation of section 893.13 "relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." § 775.084(1)(a)3, Fla....
Copy

Davis v. State, 560 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 37488

...Pursuant to a negotiated drug purchase appellant, at one time and one place on August 25, 1988, handed an undercover agent one piece of crack cocaine. [1] As a result he was charged, convicted of, and sentenced for two statutory offenses: possession of a controlled substance (a third degree felony under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987)), and delivery of a controlled substance (a second degree felony under section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1987))....
...NSES? If, in the present state of the law, the possession charge in this case in not to be reversed on constitutional double jeopardy grounds, then it should be reversed upon the basis of "statutory construction" and "legislative intent." Basically, section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that it is unlawful to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance. Sections 893.13(1)(b) and 893.13(1)(g) provide specific penalties for possession of certain amounts of certain controlled substances. Section 893.13(1)(a) provides that it is unlawful to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver, or to possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver, controlled substances....
...The point is not whether or not A's act constitutes the exercise of such dominion and control as constitutes possession; the point is that if one cannot theorize that A is in possession then one cannot conceptualize how A can accomplish a delivery of possession or a sale. [4] Query: Why does section 893.13(1)(a) provide punishment more severe than for mere possession for one who purchases from one who sells but not for one who "receives" from one who delivers? [5] Lesser in the correct theoretical sense that all the elements of the crime...
Copy

State v. Roland, 577 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 44997

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The state charged Appellee/Defendant/Mary Roland (Roland) by information with violating section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having purchased cocaine within 1000 feet of the Morris Learning Center, a kindergarten/preschool. The court dismissed the information, stating that the "Morris Learning Facility is not a school within the meaning of the statute." The state appeals the trial court's dismissal of the information. We affirm. Section 893.13(1)(e) states, in pertinent part: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled sub...
...Hence, where a statute enumerates the things on which it is to operate, or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Thus, by excluding kindergartens and preschools from section 893.13(1)(e), the legislature failed to enact a statute that applies to kindergartens and preschools....
...including the first six or the first eight grades." Therefore, in light of the fact that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused, State v. Jackson, 526 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1988); section 775.021(1), Florida Statutes, we hold that section 893.13(1)(e) does not apply to kindergartens or preschools....
Copy

Stevens v. State, 642 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 515298

...Sinardi, Tampa, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. CAMPBELL, Judge. Appellant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (§ 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1991)), delivery of cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing facility (§ 893.13(1)(i), Fla. Stat. (1991)), and possession of cocaine (§ 893.13(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991)). He challenges his convictions on evidentiary and constitutional grounds. We find no merit in appellant's evidentiary argument, but agree with him that his conviction under section 893.13(1)(i) must be vacated since the Florida Supreme Court has held that statute unconstitutionally vague....
...Since the testimony was not offered for its truth, it is not hearsay, and cannot violated the Bruton rule. We, accordingly, affirm appellant's convictions for delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine. We agree with appellant as to his second point, however. The Supreme Court has found section 893.13(1)(i) unconstitutionally void for vagueness....
Copy

Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 559630

...band with the intent to sell or deliver it. And, I also think, the circumstantial evidence in this case was sufficiently substantial to support the jury's conclusion that Gamble was guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver contraband. [1] § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...h on his person. [12] In my view, these facts provide substantial, circumstantial evidence to sustain the jury's verdict that Gamble possessed the forty rocks of cocaine with intent to sell or distribute them. This case should be affirmed. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 893.13(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Jones v. State, 589 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 240091

...1976); Jefferson v. State, 549 So.2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also Evans v. State, 543 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This is the inevitable result under the statute which, of course, makes no qualification as to the amount of controlled substance required. § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
...n an instrument which has an ordinary use other than for the consumption of cocaine. Indeed, in the second paragraph of the majority opinion it is held: [T]he statute ... makes no qualification as to the amount of controlled substance required. Sec. 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
...felony possession of cocaine. To avoid the unconscionable reaches of this rule, the majority then does what it says it may not do, that is, indulge in an act of judicial statutory amendment. The majority does so by holding that one does not violate section 893.13(1)(f) in possessing a trace amount of cocaine where the trace amount is found on an implement, unless the implement is one which is used only for drugs....
...o prove charged offense, evidence lacks conclusive nature to support conviction). By a fair reading of Eckroth and Reynolds, two Florida supreme court cases, a business executive whose currency is tainted with cocaine dust is not guilty of violating section 893.13(1)(f), absent other proof of knowledge of the presence of the illicit substance and that the amount is usable....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 63291

...the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thomas also contends that he cannot be convicted of two separate possessions of cocaine even though he sold it at different intervals. His argument is that because section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, makes it a third degree felony to possess any amount of a controlled substance, the state could not apportion the cocaine possessed by the defendant into two separate possession charges....
...The defendant was convicted on Counts I and III of sale of cocaine, a second degree felony, § 893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment. § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. Counts II *1124 and IV were possession convictions, and each was a third degree felony, § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
Copy

Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 84595

...The habitualization order, however, reflects a single sentence of 10 years imprisonment, possibly a clerical error. Section 775.084(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993), does not permit habitualization where the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced is a violation of section 893.13, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

McMullen v. State, 876 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1227319

...This case is factually indistinguishable from McCloud, because the prosecution established McMullen was in possession of cocaine with the intent to sell it, and that he sold some to a confidential informant. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. [2] § 893.13(1)(e)1., Fla....
Copy

WJ v. State, 688 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 66216

...verages in his possession. Therefore, the court was not obligated to orally pronounce that portion of the condition of probation. There is no blanket proscription on the possession of controlled substances in the juvenile community control statutes. Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), makes it unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice. To the extent that this condition bans the possession of a controlled substance obtained in compliance with section 893.13(6)(a), it is stricken....
Copy

Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1661470

...State, 787 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Appellant alleged he was tried and found guilty of two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of (the same) cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, all of which offenses are second-degree felonies. § 893.13(1)(a)1 & § 893.03(2)(a)4, Fla....
Copy

Robinson v. State, 702 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 761958

...In this case, Robinson claims his violations of probation were only technical. However, he admitted to the use of marijuana and to testing positive for marijuana in connection with his probation revocation. This is an admission of a criminal offense. See § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1984).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 42 A.L.R. 4th 579

...rofessional practice. Cilento v. State, 377 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1979). We do not find that the facts alleged show violation of the statute. This case is therefore not controlled by Migliore; the issue before us is not whether a physician in violation of section 893.13 is liable for the injuries of a third party....
...For example, in United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 96 S.Ct. 335, 46 L.Ed.2d 333 (1975), a physician was convicted of prescribing methadone in a manner which exceeded the bounds of his practice, a violation of the federal equivalent to sections 893.05 and 893.13 of the Florida Statutes....
...BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In none of the federal cases we have examined has a failure to conduct a physical examination, alone, been the basis for finding a physician criminally liable under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the functional equivalent to § 893.13, Fla....
...ndercover visit, and that prescriptions during one three-month period accounted for almost half the drug store's volume for controlled drug sales in that period. [2] We do not address the question of whether circumstances constituting a violation of section 893.13 would suffice to allow liability to be imposed on a physician for injuries suffered by third parties....
Copy

Fisher v. State, 697 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 528284

...hassee, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant, Gabriel Fisher, was convicted on two counts of sale of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes....
Copy

State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...We deny the state's petition for writ of certiorari and adopt the following well-reasoned opinion of the trial court: Defendant is charged by an information which alleges that she did "knowingly sell, deliver, or bring into this State, or was knowingly in actual or constructive possession of 400 grams or more of cocaine." Section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "any person who knowingly sells, ..., delivers, or brings into this State, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine" is guilty of trafficking in cocaine....
...The problem arises from the fact that the evidence will tend to show that her intentions were to traffic in marijuana and her belief was that the contraband would be marijuana instead of cocaine. If this were a case of simple delivery or possession of a controlled substance under § 893.13, State v....
...Obviously, intent and knowledge are elements that the State must prove and the absence of which can be a defense. The State, however, contends that the only intent and knowledge required are to traffic in controlled substances and that the specific contraband is immaterial except to set the punishment. *412 Again, if § 893.13 were involved, that argument could better be made because the offense is described in each subsection as being in the actual or constructive possession, etc. of "a controlled substance." Section 893.135, however, has five subsections each of which names a specific drug which must be possessed, etc., to constitute the offense. Had the Legislature intended for there to be just one crime with varying penalties according to the drug involved, it could easily have followed the format of § 893.13....
...rijuana is harmless and no moral wrong is committed in dealing with it although the same person may not be willing to deal in cocaine or morphine or opium or phencyclidine or methaqualone because of a moral belief that these drugs are harmful. Under § 893.13, which, as has been discussed, does not have a knowledge requirement, the Third District has ruled that a charge of sale of heroin could not be proved by the evidence of a sale of morphine. Jimenez v. State, 231 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Under § 893.135(1)(b) which does have a knowledge requirement, it would follow that proof of trafficking in cocaine would not support a charge of trafficking in marijuana or vice versa....
Copy

State v. Wynn, 623 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 341156

...The trial court concluded that the arresting officers did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity and the search was therefore illegal. We reverse, concluding that the search was legal because Wynn abandoned his truck. Wynn was charged with trafficking in cocaine, pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1991) and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver within 200 feet of a public housing facility, pursuant to section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Once the vehicle was abandoned, Wynn no longer had an expectation of privacy in the vehicle. Reversed and remanded. RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. NOTES [1] This court, in State v. Thomas, 616 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), concluded that the statutory phrase, "public housing facility" utilized in section 893.13(1)(i) was unconstitutionally vague.
Copy

Young v. State, 439 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...The appellant was charged by information with two counts which alleged that on two different dates appellant did "unlawfully and feloniously sell or deliver to another person, cannabis, a controlled substance commonly known as marijuana, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(2); third degree felony" (emphasis supplied). Cannabis is a controlled substance named in section 893.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). Section 893.13(1)(a)(2) makes it a third degree felony for "any person to sell ... or deliver ... a controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c)... ." However, section 893.13(1)(f) provides that the delivery without consideration of not more than 20 grams of marijuana is a misdemeanor of the first degree....
Copy

Moore v. State, 18 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14709, 2009 WL 3151349

...As a result, the only witness available to testify for the State about the church was the police officer. He was able to state that he had seen people coming and going from the church on Sundays, but he had last seen this activity a year before this offense. Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that it is a first-degree felony to sell cocaine within one thousand feet of “a physical place of worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services.”...
...Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence for this first-degree felony and remand for entry of a judgment and sentence for the necessarily lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell cocaine, which is a second-degree felony. See § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
Copy

Vinyard v. State, 586 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 196284

...SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge. The state charged the defendant, Garry Vinyard, with purchase of cocaine, as a principal in the first degree. [1] After the jury returned a verdict of attempted purchase of cocaine, the court adjudicated him guilty pursuant to section 893.13, sentenced him to twelve months' community control followed by twelve months' probation and revoked his driver's license for two years. [2] We have examined the six points the defendant raises on appeal, and find merit in two. These relate to his sentence. First, the defendant argues the court erred in adjudicating him guilty of attempted purchase of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), and in suspending his driver's license pursuant to section 322.055(1). Since the language in section 893.13(1)(a) proscribing purchase does not contemplate the crime of attempted purchase, the court erred in entering the defendant's conviction solely under that statute....
...ines the term buy as "to acquire by sacrifice, exchange, or trade"). The conviction and judgment should be clarified to reflect the defendant was convicted under the general attempt statute, section 777.04(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in addition to section 893.13....
...To the contrary, that statute provides "the department, at the direction of the sentencing court, shall revoke the driver's license or driving privilege of any person found guilty of or adjudicated delinquent for any violation of chapter 893.03(1) or (2)." Since the defendant violated both sections 893.13 and 777.04(1), the court may properly direct the Department of Highway Safety to revoke his driver's license....
...statutorily authorized, it should be stricken. See Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We affirm the defendant's conviction. We direct the court to correct the judgment to reflect the defendant was adjudicated guilty under sections 893.13(1)(a) and 777.04(1)....
...We vacate that portion of the sentence dealing with the suspension of the defendant's driver's license and remand for further consideration. We strike community control condition 12. Otherwise, we affirm the defendant's sentence. Remanded with directions. THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987 as amended by 1988 Supp.), reads: (1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 743 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 993154

...The jury found her guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine, and guilty of possession of marijuana, as charged. Merits Thomas maintains that the state failed to establish that she had constructive possession of the marijuana pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 893.13(6)(b) (1997)....
...[2] That section provides, in pertinent part, If the offense is the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.... § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 712 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1998 WL 223437

...KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. *382 WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion. PARIENTE, J., recused. WELLS, Justice, dissenting. Petitioner was arrested for possessing more than twenty-eight grams of cocaine and ultimately convicted of violating sections 893.135(1)(b)1 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997), are dispositive. I dissent. Neither Gibbs nor Paccione control here. The instant case deals with two alternative conduct statutes, whereas in both Gibbs and Paccione one of the statutes for which the defendant was convicted was section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), a statute which only punishes simple possession of a controlled substance....
...This case is a stronger case than Gibbs for rejecting a double jeopardy challenge because the second offense here is not simple possession as in Gibbs but possession with intent to sell/deliver. There are several ways to analyze the differences between these crimes. Pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), a person traffics in cocaine either by knowingly selling, delivering or bringing into this state 28 grams or more of cocaine or by being in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine....
...ssion of the cocaine, or, alternatively, without actually intending to sell the cocaine. See Gibbs [v. State ], 676 So.2d [1001] at 1008 [Fla. 4th DCA 1996] (Gross, J., concurring).... For the crime of possession with intent to sell/deliver cocaine, section 893.13(1)(a), an essential element is proof of specific scienter; i.e., intent to sell or deliver the cocaine....
...leads to the conclusion that there is no double jeopardy violation. Moreover, there is no indication that the legislature intended anything other than dual convictions in a situation such as the one before us. Accordingly, I would affirm. NOTES [1] Section 893.135 prohibits the possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine and provides in relevant part: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine ... but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine ... commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine." § 893.135(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] Section 893.13 prohibits the possession of a controlled substance for specific purposes and provides in relevant part: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Wallace v. State, 814 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 851254

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lamya A. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. COBB, J. David Wallace appeals his conviction of sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship pursuant to sections 893.13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides: (e) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not auth...
...4th DCA 1999) wherein the officer testified there was a "regular church" which conducted nightly services as well as Sunday daytime masses. REVERSED AND REMANDED for entry of judgment and sentence for the necessarily lesser included offense of sale of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2000)....
Copy

Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21202971

...*988 Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Fletcher Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. VAN NORTWICK, J. Charles Williams appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a child care facility, a violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...With regard to the conviction, appellant has raised several issues, but only one merits discussion. At trial, appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the sign located in front of the child care facility in question was insufficient under the applicable statute to warrant a conviction. Section 893.13(1)(c)1 provides that it is unlawful to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance in, on or within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility....
Copy

Hill v. State, 873 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1067982

...The jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant has not appealed the latter conviction. Appellant was convicted for trafficking more than 200 grams, but less than 400 grams, of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b)1.b., Florida Statutes (2002)....
...The jury was instructed on the lesser offense of simple possession. Therefore, the judgment of conviction for trafficking is reversed, the sentence therefore is vacated, and the cause is remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and for resentencing using a corrected scoresheet....
Copy

State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10025, 2010 WL 2696288

...records from pharmacies. We find the reasoning in Carter persuasive and thus reverse the order granting Tamulonis's motion to suppress. Tamulonis was charged with three counts of obtaining or attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. See § 893.13(7)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (2007 & 2008)....
Copy

Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 396350

...Gen., Tampa, for appellee. *595 PER CURIAM. The appellant, Deldesondro Callaway, challenges the trial court's judgments and sentences imposed upon him after a jury found him guilty of sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

State v. Baxter, 581 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 98027

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. The state appeals appellee's sentence to probation. He plead guilty to purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school which called for a three year mandatory minimum sentence. § 893.13(1)(3)1, Fla....
Copy

Rollins v. State, 707 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 75067

...Rollins next argues that his habitual offender sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995) was inappropriate where one of the predicate felony convictions relied upon to support the enhanced sentence was a conviction for possession *825 of cocaine pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Essentially, Rollins maintains that the habitual offender statute precludes habitualization where one of the two predicate convictions is a violation of section 893.13....
...The defendant has previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses; * * * * * * 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.... By the plain language of this statute, a defendant may not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender if both the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced and one of the two prior predicate felony convictions involves a violation of section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance. See Gagger v. State, 699 So.2d 347, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hayes v. State, 677 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In this case, Rollins was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and not a violation of section 893.13. He had two prior felony convictions, one of which was for possession of a controlled substance as prescribed by section 893.13(6)(a); the other was for burglary of a structure and grand theft second degree. Thus, because one of these two predicate convictions, and the conviction in this case, are not violations of section 893.13, Rollins' enhanced sentence was not error....
Copy

Wheeler v. State, 549 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 97697

...Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Kurt L. Barch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. BARFIELD, Judge. Larry Wheeler appealed his judgment and sentence for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, each a violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), asserting that multiple punishments for both crimes, arising out of a single transaction involving the same controlled substance, violated double jeopardy principles....
...in Gordon v. State, 528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), approved, State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1989). [1] While we reach the same conclusion as Gordon, we reject its rationale and hold that the legislative intent, as evinced by the structure of section 893.13(1)(a), was not to punish for both possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell it and the sale of the same controlled substance in the same transaction....
...islative intent, but does not affect analysis of the legislative intent as evidenced by the statute itself. Wheeler was convicted and sentenced separately for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine, both offenses prohibited by section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The structure of section 893.13(1)(a) indicates that sale and possession with intent to sell are alternative ways of violating this particular subsection of the statute and that the legislature intended by this subsection to punish either the completed sale, manufact...
...iolation of the subsection. It is logical to assume that if a contrary result had been intended, the legislature would have proscribed each offense in separate subsections of the statute, as it did with simple possession of a controlled substance in section 893.13(1)(e)....
...g the Blockburger test of separate offenses and the Carawan rule of lenity becomes unnecessary. The 1988 amendment to section 775.021, therefore, has no effect on this court's determination that the legislature intended to punish as one violation of section 893.13(1)(a) the sale, manufacture, or delivery of an illegal drug where the defendant possessed the same drug with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver it....
...simultaneously from a single drug transaction and involved the same drug. Fletcher v. State, 428 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 430 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1983). The court initially reasoned that Fletcher committed two offenses prohibited by section 893.13(1)(a) and thus did not violate "two or more criminal statutes" as required by the pre-1983 section 775.021(4) for multiple punishment....
...[7] However, the Blockburger analysis in Fletcher is at odds with the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1983). Applying section 775.021(4) and Blockburger, the court in Smith determined that possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), [8] was not an offense included in the sale of a controlled substance proscribed by section 893.13(1)(a)....
...ire proof of sale, the two are separate offenses because each requires proof of an element which the other does not. However, in Gordon v. State , the Second District Court of Appeal receded from this holding in Dukes. In Gordon, the court held that section 893.13(1)(a) lacked any statement of legislative intent concerning whether the two offenses should be punished separately or as one crime, and rejected the argument that inclusion of both offenses in the same subsection of the statute reflects clear legislative intent that the offenses are the same....
...separate convictions and sentences for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell and sale of the same controlled substance, arising out of the same criminal transaction, when both offenses appear to be alternate ways of violating section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)? Whether the supreme court's approval of Gordon v....
...2nd DCA 1988), the Second District reached *693 the same conclusion as I have. There, the court was dealing with the same offenses as are involved in the instant case, to wit: sale of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell cocaine. [2] The mere placement, therefore, of the two crimes within the statute's [Section 893.13(1)(a)] proscription will not provide the necessary clear intent language....
...ear schools. Simple possession is now proscribed by subsection (1)(f) and possession or delivery of not more than 20 grams of cannabis by (1)(g). [9] The Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (2d Ed., Supp. 1987), defines "sell" under section 893.13(1)(a): "to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value." The schedule of lesser included offenses contains no "category 1" lesser included offense when the primary offense is the violation of section 893.13(1)(a). The only "category 2" lesser offenses are attempts, except when delivery is charged; simple possession, section 893.13(1)(e), if possession is charged; and possession or delivery without consideration of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, section 893.13(1)(f), if possession or delivery of cannabis is charged....
Copy

McGlorthon v. State, 908 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1875517

...caine and one count of possession of cocaine. These cases were consolidated for a jury trial, and McGlorthon was convicted on all counts as charged. McGlorthon's appeal concerns only his two convictions for possession of cocaine, each a violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance." McGlorthon contends that he contemporaneously possessed one quantity of cocaine...
Copy

Roberts v. State, 505 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., [*] and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. This is a consolidated appeal by two defendants from their respective adjudications and sentences imposed after a jury found them guilty of unlawfully possessing marijuana in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...n actual or constructive possession of the subject contraband, and that, accordingly, their convictions should be ordered reduced from the present third-degree felony to a first-degree misdemeanor, to-wit: attempted unlawful possession of marijuana, § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

State v. Edwards, 456 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...n 397.12, Florida Statutes (1981), for conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin. We reverse and remand. The state filed a four-count information charging Edwards with conspiracy to traffic in heroin, in violation of sections 777.04, 893.135(1)(c)1 and 777.011, Florida Statutes (1981); trafficking in heroin, in violation of sections 893.135(1)(c)1 and 777.011; delivery of heroin, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1; and possession of heroin, in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)....
...those violations of chapter 893 which relate to possession. The foregoing emphasized wording of section 397.011(2) is entirely consistent with section 893.15, Florida Statutes (1981), which states in full: Rehabilitation. — Any person who violates s. 893.13(1)(e) or (1)(f) relating to possession may, in the discretion of the trial judge, be required to participate in a drug rehabilitation program approved or regulated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to the prov...
...when violations of section 893 transpire, a trial court's authority to exercise its discretion under section 397.12 is not just generally limited to violations of chapter 893 relating to possession, but is specifically limited to violations of *579 section 893.13(1)(e) or (1)(f) relating to possession....
...It is not the objective and intent of chapter 397 that one who is accused of committing such offenses, which concern drug trafficking, not drug abuse, be treated under section 397.12. Moreover, these offenses cannot be treated under section 397.12 because they involve violations of sections 893.13(1)(a)1 and 893.135(1)(c)1, not section 893.13(1)(e) or (1)(f) relating to possession....
...nolo contendere as to all counts. REVERSED and REMANDED. RYDER, C.J., concurs. GRIMES, J., concurs specially. GRIMES, Judge, concurring specially. Appellant's convictions of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin are controlled by section 893.135(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes (1981), which requires a minimum mandatory sentence of three years and a fine of $50,000. This is in conflict with section 397.12 (1981), which authorizes a person convicted of violating any provision of chapter 893 to be placed in the DACCO program in lieu of sentencing. Section 893.135 is the later enacted statute which reflects a legislative intent to strengthen the penalties for large scale drug trafficking. [1] As explained in Judge Hobson's opinion, section 397.12 seems to be directed at drug users rather than drug traffickers. Therefore, I am convinced that drug traffickers convicted under section 893.135 may not be referred to the DACCO program in lieu of receiving a minimum mandatory sentence....
Copy

Hayes v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 743519

...respect address or criminalize the use of a firearm while committing a criminal offense. Second, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846. This crime is parallel to section 893.13, Florida Statutes, which provides that "it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
...Because defendant was convicted of conspiracy, the offense becomes a third degree felony and scores at 10 points. See § 777.04(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). Defendant argues that even though he possessed approximately 20 kilos of cocaine in connection with this charge, section 893.135(1)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (1993) (which provides that any person who conspires to traffic cocaine in the amount possessed by defendant commits a felony in the first degree), does not apply because under federal law, the quantity of drugs does not constitute an element of the crime....
Copy

Spabo v. United States Attorney Gen., 837 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2016).

Cited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 WL 4978352

that his conviction for violating Florida Statute § 893.13(l)(a)(l) constituted an aggravated felony and
Copy

O'HARA v. State, 964 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2713539

...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge. Mark O'Hara was convicted of trafficking in hydrocodone based on his possession of 58 Vicodin tablets containing that substance. See § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c), Fla....
...The State objected to the instruction and the court denied the request. We hold that O'Hara was entitled to the instruction, and, accordingly, we reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial. O'Hara contends that section 499.03(1), Florida Statutes (2004), and section 893.13(6) each provide a "prescription defense" to a charge of trafficking by possession under the drug trafficking statute, section 893.135....
...t-forming, toxic, harmful, . . . or legend drug as defined in s. 499.003(25), unless the possession of the drug has been obtained by a valid prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe the drug. *841 § 499.03(1) (emphasis supplied). Section 893.13(6), the criminal statute that prohibits and penalizes simple drug possession, contains a similar provision: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice . . . . § 893.13(6)(a) (emphasis supplied). The drug trafficking statute, section 893.135, contains no express language setting forth a prescription defense....
...However, its proscriptions against the sale, delivery, or possession of trafficking amounts of certain drugs are prefaced by the following qualification: " Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: . . ." § 893.135(1) (emphasis supplied). O'Hara argues that the emphasized language makes the above-quoted prescription defenses available to the defendant in a trafficking prosecution under section 893.135. The State maintains that section 499.03(1) is simply inapplicable and does not provide a defense to a charge of trafficking by possession. It acknowledges that section 893.13(6)(a) provides a prescription defense to possession of controlled substances, but it contends that the defense does not apply to a defendant who is charged with possessing a trafficking amount....
...Therefore, hydrocodone is a "legend drug" for purposes of section 499.03(1). As such, the statute does not prohibit its possession if "possession of the drug has been obtained by a valid prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe the drug." Because the first subsection of the trafficking statute, section 893.135(1), excepts acts authorized under chapter 499 from the ambit of the described crimes, the authorized possession of hydrocodone under section 499.03(1) could provide a defense to O'Hara's trafficking charge....
...It would appear, then, that section 499.03(1) authorizes a person to possess a legend drug, including hydrocodone, if he obtained the drug by a valid prescription. Further, that authorization has been expressly incorporated in the trafficking statute by the introductory sentence of section 893.135(1). But our inquiry does not end there. As we have mentioned, there is also a prescription defense contained in the drug possession statute, section 893.13(6)....
...It provides a defense to the charge of simple possession of "controlled substances," a category that includes hydrocodone but that is less inclusive than the "legend drugs" category that is the subject of section 499.03. Under one principle of statutory construction, it might be argued that the more specific statute, section 893.13, controls over the more general one, section 499.03....
...Cregan, 908 So.2d 387, 391 (Fla.2005); McKendry v. State, 641 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla.1994) ("[A] specific statute covering a particular subject area always controls over a statute covering the same and other subjects in more general terms."). Consequently, we must also address the applicability of the section 893.13 prescription defense to a trafficking charge under section 893.135. For this discussion, we return to the introductory sentence of the trafficking statute, section 893.135(1). Recall that *843 O'Hara points to the first phrase of that sentence in support of his claim that there is a section 893.13(6)(a) prescription defense to a charge of trafficking by possession. But the State maintains that the second phrase of the sentence wholly precludes any reliance on section 893.13 in trafficking cases: "Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: . . ." § 893.135(1) (emphasis supplied). This, according to the State, is "plain language" that means none of the provisions of section 893.13 can ever apply to the crimes delineated in section 893.135....
...Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992). Whenever possible, we must give full force to all statutory provisions. Doe v. Dep't of Health, 948 So.2d 803, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Applying these principles here, it is obvious that sections 893.13 and 893.135 are part of a statutory scheme addressing the possession of controlled substances, with the latter statute imposing more severe penalties for possessing larger, "trafficking," amounts of the drugs. And, indeed, the legislative history of the phrase at issue here—"and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13"—informs us that its very purpose was to harmonize the two statutes. The language was added to section 893.135 in 1980....
...Rather, the bills' initial purpose simply was to amend the trafficking statute to include the drugs methaqualone and phencyclidine within its scope. But a Senate staff analysis pointed out the following problem: This bill, as drafted, may create a duplication of penalties unless s. 893.13 is amended to except those quantities of Methaqualone and Phencyclidine to be covered by the trafficking section. Such an exception was made for large quantities of marijuana when the existing trafficking statute was created. However, certain other drugs covered by the trafficking statute, such as cocaine, were not excepted from s. 893.13, and thus, violations involving large quantities of these drugs may be prosecuted under either section....
...Dep't of State, State Archives, Tallahassee, Fla.) (emphases supplied). The final bill, Committee Substitute for House Bill 263, addressed the problem discussed in the Senate staff analysis, but it took a different approach. Instead of adding new exceptions *844 to section 893.13, as proposed in the analysis, the bill deleted the existing exceptions in that statute and amended the introductory sentence of section 893.135 to include the language on which the State now relies....
...80-70, §§ 1, 2, at 232-35; CS for SB 296 Staff Analysis. This history discloses that the new language was placed in the statute to address a narrow concern: that offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs might be prosecuted instead for simple possession under section 893.13, and thus they would be permitted to escape the more severe penalties mandated under the trafficking statute. Nothing in the enactment itself or in the history of the bills that resulted in the new law suggests that the Legislature intended or even contemplated the expansive reading advocated by the State, such that the exceptions or defenses in section 893.13 having nothing to do with penalties also would be excluded from the trafficking statute. Indeed, the effect of the State's interpretation of the trafficking statute would extend well beyond the prescription defense at issue here. Both section 499.03(1) and section 893.13(9) shield certain persons or entities who possess and deliver drugs, such as pharmacists, medical practitioners, hospitals, law enforcement officers, and the like, from the criminal prohibitions and penalties contained in the statutes. But in some instances the section 893.13 exemptions are broader than the ones contained in section 499.03. For example, section 499.03(1)(e) exempts "[a]n officer or employee of a federal, state, or local government," whereas section 893.13(9)(e) excludes "[o]fficers or employees of state, federal, or local governments acting in their official capacity only, or informers acting under their jurisdiction. " (Emphasis supplied.) If, as the State maintains, no part of section 893.13 applies to the trafficking law, informants acting under the orders of law enforcement could be prosecuted for trafficking....
...a man who possessed hydrocodone that he obtained by prescription. At the time of his arrest, O'Hara had 58 Vicodin tablets in his possession, but under the State's theory he would have violated the trafficking law even if he had possessed far fewer. Section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a) establishes a three-year minimum mandatory prison term for possession of "4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams" of hydrocodone....
...Under the statute, when a controlled substance is mixed with another substance in a pill, the weight of the controlled substance is deemed to be the total weight of the mixture, "including the controlled substance and any other substance in the mixture." § 893.135(6)....
...Under the trafficking statute, that many Vicodin tablets would be deemed to contain over 30 grams of hydrocodone. According to the State's reasoning in this case, any patient who had the doctor's prescription filled was subject to a twenty-five year minimum mandatory prison term and a mandatory fine of $500,000. See § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c) (specifying penalty for possessing 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms)....
...rescribed Vicoden tablets would face a minimum mandatory prison term of 25 years and a fine of $500,000. But if the 60 tablets in his possession were Vicoprofen, his minimum mandatory punishments would be fully ten years fewer and $400,000 less. See § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(b) (specifying penalty for possessing 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams)....
...tect the public from the illicit trade in narcotics and its duty to ensure the ability of the afflicted to obtain drugs that are critical to their well-being. It is impossible to reconcile that endeavor with the State's position about the meaning of section 893.135(1)....
...Judging by its quick response to the public health ramifications of removing hydrocodone from Schedule III, it is unimaginable that the Legislature would endanger the public by imposing such an onerous burden as that advocated by the State in this case. To summarize, section 499.03 and section 893.13 allow a person to legally possess either a legend drug or a controlled substance when the drug was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription....
Copy

Beauchamp v. State, 742 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 771507

...App.1992); Jason S. Thaler, Public Housing Consent Clauses: Unconstitutional Condition or Constitutional Necessity?, 63 Fordham L.Rev. 1777 (1995). Reversed and remanded. FULMER, J., and PELLECCHIA, DONALD E., Associate Judge, Concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...[3] The record identifies the dormitory suite as either 203 Beta House or 203 Zeta House. [4] The motion to suppress is dispositive of the marijuana possession charge because the State was required to prove Mr. Beauchamp possessed the marijuana found in his bedroom with an intent to sell it. See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...Likewise, the motion is dispositive of the paraphernalia possession charge. We are not called upon to determine whether the police officer at the doorway of the suite could have charged Mr. Beauchamp with misdemeanor possession based on the odor and his confession. See § 893.13(6)(b), (d), Fla....
Copy

Virgil v. State, 884 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2008501

...the record before this court that the sentences are illegal. See Higgins v. State, 799 So.2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In circuit court case number 95-15938, Virgil pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court sentenced her as a habitual felony offender to fifteen years in prison. Pursuant to section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), a defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance....
...ence in case number 95-3049. In addition, in circuit court case numbers 95-4623 and 96-06981, Virgil was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to trafficking in cocaine, 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams. These sentences are illegal because section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides that if the quantity of the cocaine involved is 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams, the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines....
Copy

Peterson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 583703

...Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward L. Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant Ezekiel Peterson was convicted below of sale, delivery or possession with *1029 intent to sell or deliver cocaine under section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). He was also found guilty of possession of cocaine under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The evidence at trial was that Peterson sold a cocaine rock to an undercover officer. He had obtained the rock from a codefendant who took it from a vial. After both men were arrested, the vial was seized. It contained 32 cocaine rocks. Peterson argues that he may not be convicted under section 893.13(1)(a) and also under section 893.13(1)(f) for possession of the same quantity of cocaine....
...lien imposed. If he requests a hearing, one should be set pursuant to rule 3.720(d)(2). GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN, JJ., and GROSS, ROBERT M., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] The judgment of conviction signed by the trial court indicates conviction under section 893.13(1)(b) instead of section 893.13(1)(f)....
Copy

State v. Wright, 662 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 601363

...The state challenges the trial court's order granting the appellee's motion to suppress evidence. We find that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress and, accordingly, reverse. The appellee was charged with one count of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

State v. MAD, 721 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821732

...for trespass after warning. The officer's search of M.A.D.'s bag yielded the presence of a small amount of marijuana. M.A.D. was thereafter arrested and charged in a petition for delinquency with one count of possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997)....
Copy

State v. Lampley, 817 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1059881

...Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jennifer Brooks, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. *990 GROSS, J. The state appeals the granting of a motion to suppress in favor of appellee, Billy Lampley, who was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000)....
Copy

State v. De La Llana, 693 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5389, 1997 WL 253032

...E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Thomas A. Smith, Tampa, for Appellee. LAZZARA, Judge. The state of Florida appeals a county court order dismissing a criminal charge embodied in a notice to appear which determined that section 893.13(7)(a)5., Florida Statutes (1995), which formed the basis for the charge, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad....
...Because we conclude that the statute is neither overbroad nor impermissibly vague in all of its applications and thus is facially constitutional, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The state charged the appellee, Jack De La Llana, by notice to appear with violating section 893.13(7)(a)5., which makes it unlawful for any person: To keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in vi...
...very brief hearing consisting of nothing more than a recapitulation of the appellee's motion and a perfunctory discussion of the law, the trial court orally granted the motion. Its announced reason for doing so was based on a "finding that [section] 893.13(7)(a)5....
...s, the statute violates the equal protection of the law and results in the unconstitutional deprivation of due process." We begin our resolution of this appeal by limiting the focus of the analysis we must employ in deciding the constitutionality of section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...ep or maintain" contemplates conduct involving control over a place in a managerial capacity. We conclude from this analysis, coupled with the well-pleaded allegations of the state's notice to appear, that the appellee has failed to demonstrate that section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...State, 289 So.2d 388, 390 (Fla.1973) (criminal statute need not furnish detailed plans and specifications to comply with constitutional requirements). In view of our conclusions, we, as well as the appellee, are prohibited from delving into the hypothetical realm of considering whether there exists the possible risk that section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...Accordingly, for the reasons expressed, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. NOTES [1] A person who violates this provision commits a misdemeanor of the first degree. See § 893.13(7)(b), Fla....
...in constitutionally protected speech or expression). [3] This concept of a statute's lack of a "core" was explored in Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla. 1994), in which the supreme court found that the undefined phrase "public housing facility" in section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp....
Copy

Dickerson v. State, 783 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 303558

...Renee Waters, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alfred Washington, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. ORFINGER, R.B., J. Mathew Dickerson (Dickerson), challenges the constitutionality of sections 893.13(1)(e) and 812.171, Florida Statutes (1999), which enhance the penalties imposed on defendants convicted of selling, manufacturing, delivering or possessing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a convenience business. Dickerson claims that the statutes are void for vagueness. We find the statutes to be constitutional and affirm Dickerson's judgment and sentence. The relevant portion of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authori...
...ute places a reasonable person on notice of what constitutes "convenience business." Dickerson then entered a negotiated plea of no contest and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. In challenging the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), Dickerson argues that the trial court should have found the statute to be unconstitutional because the language of the statute is vague in its creation of a 1000-foot drug-free zone around convenience businesses....
...nd burden rests on defendant to establish the contrary). A challenge to a statute on grounds of vagueness turns initially to the *1147 nature of the behavior the statute seeks to regulate. Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Since section 893.13(1)(e) does not regulate constitutionally protected conduct, it could only be found to be unconstitutionally vague if the statutory language is so vague that it fails to give adequate notice of any conduct that the statute proscribes....
..."convenience business." This argument is unavailable to Dickerson unless he first demonstrates that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case. Dickerson has not shown that his conduct did not fall within the application of section 893.13(1)(e) and cannot challenge the statute for vagueness with respect to the hypothetical conduct of others....
...ice that certain drug offenses committed within 1000 feet of a "convenience business" would be enhanced. There is no protected right to sell narcotics anywhere. See Burch, 545 So.2d at 281. While the provisions of criminal statutes, such as sections 893.13 and 812.171, "must be strictly construed according to their letter," see Perkins v....
...ersons of common intelligence of what conduct will render them liable to be prosecuted for its violation." Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So.2d 192, 198 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 818, 102 S.Ct. 98, 70 L.Ed.2d 88 (1981) (citations omitted). Here, section 893.13(1)(e) defines a "convenience business" by referencing section 812.171, which clearly defines the term "convenience business" and is not susceptible to more than one meaning....
Copy

Fundak v. State, 362 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. OTT, Judge. Under a two-count information appellant, Stephen Fundak, was charged and convicted of sale and possession of marijuana in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) and Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1977), respectively....
...It would apply to the facts in the instant case because possession of marijuana was not a lesser included offense of sale of marijuana based upon the allegations in the information. Additionally, each of the two counts can be considered as arising out of a different statute because § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977) and § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Pratt v. State, 601 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 143647

...Thus, we affirm condition 11 with regard to illegal drugs but strike it with regard to alcohol. Reversed and remanded for a new trial; conditions of probation affirmed in part and stricken in part. RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. NOTES [1] These crimes were in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1989); section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990); section 893.13(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes (Supp....
Copy

State v. Reed, 712 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 321857

...contraband on his person—gave Fernandez probable cause to believe a crime had been committed [6] and that Reed had committed it. [7] REVERSED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] State v. T.T., 594 So.2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). [2] § 893.13(1)(a)1, Fla....
...Jarrett . [5] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); Chambers v. State, 700 So.2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); State v. McLaughlin, 454 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Walton, 565 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). [6] § 893.13(6), Fla....
Copy

Latos v. State, 39 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9849, 2010 WL 2675298

...I) violate double jeopardy. We agree and reverse appellant's conviction and sentence on Count I and remand with directions to discharge appellant on this count. Appellant was charged by information with sale or delivery of oxycodone, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Count I); trafficking in oxycodone, in that he "did knowingly sell, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bring into this state, or be in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams of oxycodone, in violation of Florida Statute 893.135(1)(c)a" (Count II); and possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of section 790.23, Florida Statutes (Count III)....
...The information set forth the elements of the crimes with which appellant was charged, and the trial court, without objection, took judicial notice of the facts contained in the arrest affidavit. In Count I, appellant was charged with oxycodone sale or delivery (§ 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008)). In Count II, appellant was charged with oxycodone trafficking (§ 893.135(1)(c)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2008)). Section 893.13(1)(a) provides in pertinent part: "Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." The information alleged that appellant knowingly sold and delivered a controlled substance. Section 893.135(1)(c)1.a. provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: ......
Copy

State v. Lazo, 761 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 954830

...The State appeals the imposition of drug offender probation for the offense of driving while license suspended or revoked. We reverse. On September 15, 1999, the appellee, Jose G. Lazo, entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), and felony driving while license suspended or revoked, a violation of sections 322.34(5) and 322.264, Florida Statutes (1997)....
...to impose drug offender probation for the cocaine possession charge, but argues that the trial court erred in imposing concurrent drug offender probation on the felony DWLSR charge. We agree. Section 948.034(2) provides that any person who violates section 893.13(6)(a) or other specifically enumerated sections may, in the discretion of the trial court, be placed on drug offender probation in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment....
Copy

Alex Cori Tribue v. United States, 929 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2019).

Cited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

that a drug conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (1) is a "serious drug offense" under the
Copy

Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 140442

...Malone, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. GROSS, J. Larry Lawrence appeals his conviction of purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)....
Copy

Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...of the contraband in the trunk of the car. Appellant contends that the State has not met its burden of showing that he had actual or constructive possession and control of the contraband in the trunk. [2] With certain exceptions not applicable here, section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983) makes it unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance....
...*746 Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on necessarily included lesser offenses. [3] On the trafficking charge, a first degree felony, appellant contends that the jury should have been instructed on sale, manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to sell cocaine (section 893.13(1)(a)1), a second degree felony; bringing cocaine into the state, a second degree felony (section 893.13(1)(d)), and possession of cocaine, a third degree felony (section 893.13(1)(e)), relying on Bell v....
...State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1983). Bell did hold that the offenses listed by appellant were necessarily lesser included offenses of trafficking, but that holding in Bell was receded from in Rotenberry v. State, 468 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1985) where the court held: Section 893.135 is sufficiently different from the provisions of section 893.13 to allow multiple punishments at the same trial because the state need not prove a violation of 893.13(1)(a), (d), and (e), but only violation of at least one of those provisions....
...sarily lesser included offenses of trafficking. Except for attempt, no category 2 lesser offense is listed in the schedule under trafficking. Similarly, the court did not err in refusing to give an instruction as to any lesser included offense under section 893.13(1)(e), because no category 1 lesser offense is listed....
Copy

Perez v. State, 647 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 706231

...the cocaine possession case, both sentences to be served concurrently. Section 775.084(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1993), does not permit the habitualization of a defendant where the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance....
...nd habitual felony offender status for the cocaine possession case only, Circuit Court Case Number 93-36225, and remand for resentencing of that case to reflect a concurrent sentence appropriate to the third-degree felony of cocaine possession under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3687106

...fine other than section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2004), that addresses the imposition of a five percent surcharge to the imposed fine. We conclude that the fine and surcharge must be stricken. The trial court's monetary obligations order refers to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004). Mr. Dadds' cocaine possession conviction is for a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(2). That subsection does not mandate a $500 fine. Section 893.13(1)(a)(2) does refer to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2004), as does the trial court's monetary obligations order....
Copy

Fike v. State, 474 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1985).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 408

...court of appeal. The information filed by the state specifically alleged that petitioner "did unlawfully and feloniously sell or deliver to another person, Cannabis, a controlled substance commonly known as Marijuana, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(2); a Third Degree Felony." Both parties agree that an information alleging delivery of marijuana, without specifying the quantity thereof or that the delivery was for consideration, charges only a misdemeanor....
Copy

State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1923121

...Because the statute does not authorize such a placement for these offenses, we conclude that the trial court erred. The appellee, Nathaniel Roper, pled guilty to charges of delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, both in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2003). While waiting for sentencing for those violations, Mr. Roper was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6), possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147(1), as well as obstruction by a disguised person contrary to section 843.03....
...The state appeals. We have jurisdiction. See Rule 9.140(c)(1)(L), Fla. R.App. P. Section 948.20 reads in pertinent part: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), the court may either adjudge the defendant guilty or stay and withhold the adjudication of guilt; and, in either case, it may stay and withhold the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on drug offender probation. A plain reading of the statute reflects that it applies only to violations of sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), Florida Statutes, which prohibit the purchase or possession of certain controlled substances, including cocaine. See State v. Lazo, 761 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As Mr. Roper pled guilty to charges involving delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), it appears that the *624 trial court was not authorized to use section 948.20 in sentencing....
...But at the time of the Jones decision, the statute provided drug offender probation for a person who committed any violation of chapter 893. The statute was amended in 2001, however, to limit the availability of drug offender probation only to chronic substance abusers who violate sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a) as the result of the purchase or possession of controlled substances....
Copy

Willingham v. State, 781 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 331899

...s right to have a jury trial. Compare McDonald v. State, 751 So.2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Pruitt v. State, 682 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Dombrowski v. State, 695 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
Copy

Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 954533

...lorida Statutes (2003), we agree that the jury instruction regarding the lack of knowledge affirmative defense constitutes reversible error. Burnette was charged with possession of the controlled substance diazepam, also known as Valium, pursuant to section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2003)....
...under this chapter," and the supreme court cases holding otherwise are "contrary to legislative intent." See Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002) (holding in part that guilty knowledge is an element of possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)); Chicone v....
...In other words, "an affirmative defense says, `Yes, I did it, but I had a good reason.'" Id. at 52. Section 893.101 expressly states that knowledge of the nature of a substance is not an element of the offense of possession. A defendant charged under section 893.13 can concede all the elements of the offense, i.e., possession of a specific substance and knowledge of the presence of the substance, and still be able to assert the defense that he did not know of the illicit nature of the specific substance....
Copy

Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 34830

...Landry, Charles Corces, Jr., Peggy A. Quince, Joseph R. Bryant, Katherine V. Blanco, Lauren Hafner Sewell, Gary O. Welch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. THREADGILL, Judge. These consolidated appeals challenge an order of the trial court which declared section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), to be constitutional. We affirm. Appellants were charged by information with the purchase of cocaine in violation of section 893.13....
...Burch, 545 So.2d at 285-286. We agree with that decision and affirm the order of the trial court finding the statute to be constitutional. Because we find this issue to be of great public importance, however, we certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Appellant Blankenship also contends and the state concedes that the order placing her on probation erroneously reflects a five-year term of probation rather than a *909 three-year term as pronounced by the court....
Copy

State v. Eldridge, 814 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 529899

...as, said facts made known to me have caused me to certify and find that there is probable cause to believe that certain laws to wit: laws prohibiting the possession, distribution, and manufacturing of controlled substances to wit: methamphetamine, F.S. 893.13, have been and are being violated in or on certain premises, in Holmes County, Florida.......
Copy

Mullis v. State, 79 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14233, 2011 WL 3962910

...Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. WALLACE, Judge. Scott Lee Mullis appeals his judgment and sentences for five counts of obtaining a controlled substance by withholding information in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)(8), Florida Statutes (2008), following *749 his guilty plea....
...This usually stems from a patient's addiction to, or reliance on, certain prescription drugs or other medical treatment." Doctor Shopping (Aug. 2, 2011, 2:05 p.m.), http://en.wikipedia. org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_shopping & oldid=XXXXXXXXX. Violations of section 893.13(7)(a)(8) are commonly referred to as "doctor shopping.'?D See generally Knipp v. State, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2898, D2899 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec.22, 2010) (referring to section 893.13(7)(a)(8) as the "doctor shopping" statute)....
Copy

State v. Manning, 605 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 213116

...We do not see this result as having been intended by the legislature. *511 We must now determine the impact, if any, that Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1992), has on this case. In Scates, the defendant was convicted of purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school under section 893.13(1)(e)(1), which mandated that he "be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of three calendar years." A 4-3 majority of the supreme court held that the specific direction of section 893.13(1)(e)(1) must yield to the general provisions of Chapter 397 which gives discretion to the trial judge to order rehabilitation "in lieu of, or in addition to, imposition of criminal penalties." We hold that Scates is not applicable to this case....
Copy

Culver v. State, 990 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4276323

...on bail to appear. Although Ms. Culver raises two issues on appeal, the only issue warranting discussion is her claim that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of trafficking in cocaine, a violation of section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...of the powder cocaine that she carried on her person when she was arrested. The State acknowledged that the weight of the cocaine that Ms. Culver had on her person was less than the twenty-eight grams necessary to sustain the trafficking charge. See § 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a)....
...The trial court adjudged Ms. Culver guilty of trafficking in cocaine and sentenced her to a term of four years in prison for that offense plus $52,893 in fines and costs. The four-year prison sentence was subject to a three-year mandatory minimum term in accordance with section 893.135(1). II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS To prove the charge of trafficking in cocaine, the State was required to establish that Ms. Culver "knowingly" was "in actual or constructive possession of[ ] 28 grams or more of cocaine." § 893.135(1)(b)(1); see Snell v....
...See Hargrove, 928 So.2d at 1256. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we reverse Ms. Culver's judgment and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. On remand, the trial court shall adjudge Ms. Culver to be guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine, section 893.13(6)(a), and sentence her for that offense....
Copy

Bradley v. State, 721 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821814

...Bradley was still under state supervision when he violated the terms of his community control. Finding no error in the court's ruling, we affirm. See also Porter v. State, 585 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 657 (Fla.1992). JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Rogers v. State, 626 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 469791

...State, 591 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The failure to give an authorized and requested lesser-included instruction is reversible error. Amado v. State, 585 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1991). REVERSED FOR NEW TRIAL. DELL, C.J., and STONE, J., concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] See § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
Copy

State v. McCloud, 721 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 796381

...tained by a bargain struck between the trial judge and the defendant over the objection of the state. I would reverse for the reasons set forth in our opinion in State v. Gitto, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1550 (Fla. 5th DCA June 26,1998)(en banc). NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Fink v. Holt, 609 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Cited 5 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 WL 324724

and in the course of professional practice." See § 893.13(5)(a) and (5)(b)3, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Sheriff's
Copy

Lanier v. State, 983 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2120798

...838.021, Florida Statutes (2002). [2] In lower tribunal case number 07-18004, Lanier was charged with threatening to throw a destructive device—a bomb—in violation of section 790.162, Florida Statutes (2007), possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2007), and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (2007)....
Copy

Lambert v. State, 728 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 110902

...t of residue was cocaine merely because he was in possession of the glass pipe. The jury found Lambert guilty as charged, after which a judgment and sentence were imposed. In Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1996), the supreme court interpreted section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (1995), pertaining to illegal possession of a controlled substance, as necessarily including a scienter requirement....
Copy

Grant v. State, 815 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 449848

...sistence that the jury be instructed on the necessity of proof of the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband in drug cases. Mr. McMillon was charged with and convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover officer, a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, *670 Florida Statutes (1997), which contains the same prescriptive language under which Mr. Grant was prosecuted for delivery: 893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.— (1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
...iven for the charge. We affirm his conviction for possession and remand for reconsideration of that sentence in light of potential guideline implications. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded. FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a) and (1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Nash v. State, 951 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 837205

...at 793 (emphasis in original). Thus, Garcia made clear that a defendant had to knowingly possess the substance as well as have knowledge of its illicit nature. [1] The trafficking statute itself makes knowledge of the possession an element of the crime. Section 893.135(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, provides that a person "who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of" the prescribed amount of cocaine is guilty of a first degree felony (emphasis added). This is different than the statute governing possession offenses which do not amount to trafficking, which provides that "it is unlawful for any person to . . . possess" the proscribed drugs. See, e.g., § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Prescott v. State, 753 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 329411

...e thousand feet comes into play." The court responded, "right." We conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the statute prohibiting possession of the contraband within 1000 feet of a school with intent to sell it, anywhere. Florida Statute Section 893.13(1)(c) (1995) provides that: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 fe...
Copy

State v. Lane, 582 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 104652

...Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The state appeals an order of probation rendered by the trial court. We reverse and remand. See State v. Baxter, 581 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Appellee was charged by information with violating section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), for the alleged purchase of cocaine rocks within one thousand feet of a middle school....
...After a plea of nolo contendere to the charge, he was found to be drug dependent pursuant to section 397.021(6), Florida Statutes (1989), and was committed to HRS for treatment pursuant to section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989), over the state's objection. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), requires a mandatory minimum sentence of three calendar years for violating the statute....
...trial court of its discretionary authority to withhold imposition of sentence and place the defendant on probation. *78 As in Ross, the statute under which sentence was to be imposed in the instant case is the later promulgated statute. The current section 893.13(1)(e) took effect on June 27, 1989 (Ch....
...ant in such program. (Emphasis added). The defendant was charged with purchase, not simple possession. Accordingly, we hold it was not the legislature's intent to have section 397.12 be an exception to the mandatory minimum sentencing requirement of section 893.13(1)(e) in all respects or it would have so stated....
...2d DCA 1984), and State v. Raphael, 469 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1986). Moreover, the defendant here purchased two rocks for $20, which could reasonably be interpreted to have been purchased for personal use only. Nevertheless, section 893.13(1)(e), makes no distinction in the quantity purchased within 1,000 feet of a school....
Copy

Green v. State, 602 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 123447

...Without having been told anything, and most especially not having been told what was found, the driver said: "That's not my stuff." The tinfoil proved to contain three cocaine rocks. Green, the owner/driver, was charged with simple possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...On appeal, defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal. He contends that there was no evidence to support a prima facie case of constructive possession. Conspicuously lacking, he argues, is any evidence that he *1308 had knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Green was charged under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), which says: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a...
...is professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony of the third degree * * * * * * The text of section 893.13(1)(f) should be compared with section 893.135(1)(b)1.a, Florida Statutes (1989), which says in part: Any person * * * who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4. or of any mixture containing cocaine, but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine or any such mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine." * * * [e.s.] Section 893.135(1)(b)1.a thus makes guilty knowledge of the actual substance an element of the crime....
...ue, to an instruction on the general intent to do the act charged, or his general knowledge of the act forming the basis for the charge. Medlin, 273 So.2d at 397; Oxx, 417 So.2d at 289, n. 2. Hence, even though there is a guilty knowledge element in section 893.135(1)(b)1., but not in section 893.13(1)(f), the standard jury instructions for both statutes contain the following: If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed....
...The proper construction of these cases is this: If the legislature has omitted the requirement of guilty knowledge in the text of a statutory crime, then guilty knowledge is not an element of that crime, regardless of what the legislature has said in other statutes. Section 893.13(1)(f), the simple possession statute, is an example of such knowledge being omitted. On the other hand, where the legislature has expressly included guilty knowledge as an element of the crime, as it has done in the trafficking statute, section 893.135, then that knowledge must be proven by the state....
...eral knowledge from mere evidence of the doing of an act. The application of these principles may be illustrated by analyzing a trafficking case. In Murphy v. State, 511 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the defendant was convicted of trafficking under section 893.135(1)(b)1., and appealed....
Copy

Stamps v. State, 620 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 177937

...Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carl R. Hayes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for the purchase of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Defendant, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, contends that the tract within 1,000 feet of which expert testimony of a surveyor showed defendant's purchase was made did not consist of "real property comprising a ... school" under section 893.13(1)(e)....
...Under the rule of lenity applied to criminal statutes, section 775.021(1), it is not sufficient that the school "own" the property. Rather, the property must "comprise" the school. The two terms are not synonymous. Thus, we reverse defendant's conviction under section 893.13(1)(e)....
...If he had been charged with purchase of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines would have permitted no greater penalty than probation. Because he was arrested by the police and prosecuted by the state attorney under the school rule, he was sentenced to a three-year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment. See § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Hughes v. State, 850 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21738423

...bitual offender sentence. Under section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1999), a defendant cannot be habitualized unless "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance." In 1994, appellant was separately convicted of possession of cocaine and of violating section 893.13(3)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1991) which states that: (3)(a) It is unlawful for any person: 1....
...To acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge. (Emphasis added). The state apparently concedes appellant's conviction for possession *665 of cocaine is a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase and possession of a controlled substance....
...se and possession of a controlled substance. We disagree. The statute prohibiting a person from acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance by fraud requires an intent to possess a controlled substance. It is therefore, on its face, a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

Wright v. State, 975 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2141827

...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SALCINES, Judge. Octavia Wright appeals her conviction for trafficking in cocaine. We reverse. The offense of trafficking in cocaine is defined in section 893.135(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...Also, a witness testified that Wright told her that the package from Jamaica contained an illegal cellular phone. Wright never mentioned the cocaine to this witness. During the charge conference, the defense requested and was granted a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of bringing cocaine into the state. § 893.13(5)....
Copy

Shariff David Bula Lopez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 914 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2019).

Cited 5 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...deliver, and thus his prior conviction did not constitute a CIMT. B. IJ’s Order In a written order, the IJ found that Bula Lopez’s Florida conviction was for possession with intent to deliver, not simple possession. Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) criminalizes possession with intent to deliver, whereas Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(a) criminalizes simple possession. The IJ noted that DHS bears the burden of proving Bula Lopez’s inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence....
...ffidavit all described his offense as 3 Case: 17-15179 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 4 of 18 possession with intent to deliver. However, one document—the information— referred to § 893.13(6)(a), although it also described the offense as possession with intent to deliver. The IJ therefore found “that the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that [Bula Lopez] was convicted under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), and not Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a).” Having determined that Bula Lopez’s prior conviction was for possession with intent to deliver Flunitrazepam under § 893.13(1)(a), the IJ then determined that his conviction qualified as a CIMT under the INA and sustained that charge of removability....
...was a CIMT by clear and convincing evidence, but the IJ erroneously applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. Bula Lopez also argued that the IJ erred in sustaining the CIMT charge because Flunitrazepam was not a federally controlled substance, and his offense, whether under § 893.13(6)(a) or § 893.13(1)(a), lacked the requisite “evil intent” mens rea requirement....
...preponderance of the evidence standard in making its finding regarding Bula Lopez’s statute of conviction. The BIA concluded, however, that “this misstatement [was] not material” because the record provided clear and convincing evidence that Bula Lopez was convicted under § 893.13(1)(a) for possession with intent to deliver Flunitrazepam. Next, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Bula Lopez’s conviction was a CIMT....
...We address each issue in turn. III. STATUTE OF CONVICTION As a preliminary matter, we must address whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination that Bula Lopez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), rather than simple possession under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a)....
...assertion that DHS failed to prove his statute of conviction by sufficient evidence. See Garces, 611 F.3d at 1343; Adefemi, 358 F.3d at 833. We have no trouble concluding, on this record, that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Bula Lopez was convicted under § 893.13(1)(a) (possession with intent to deliver), and not § 893.13(6)(a) (simple possession). Though the information does cite § 893.13(6)(a), it twice refers to Bula Lopez’s offense as “possession with intent to deliver flunitrazepam.” And aside from this one citation, no other document in the record indicates that Bula Lopez’s conviction was for simple possession....
...to del.,” (3) “poss/sell/deliv flunitrazepam,” and (4) “poss w/ intent to deliver— flunitrazepam.” In short, reasonable, substantial evidence supports a finding that Bula Lopez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver under § 893.13(1)(a), and the single reference in the information to § 893.13(6)(a) does not compel reversal....
Copy

Morris v. State, 749 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 85270

...There were ample facts to support the trial court's ruling and its decision will not be overturned on appeal. See State v. Smith, 632 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA), cert. denied 513 U.S. 914, 115 S.Ct. 290, 130 L.Ed.2d 205 (1994). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. COBB, J., concurs without participation at oral argument. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 47674

...At sentencing, he was determined to be a habitual felony offender and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. Williams first contends that his sentence as a habitual felony offender is not authorized by Florida Statute § 775.084(1)(a), (3) (1993) because that section does not permit a violation of Florida Statute § 893.13 to serve as a predicate conviction. Florida Statute § 775.084(1)(a), (3) states that "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance; ...." Williams asserts that the words purchase or possession in that section merely serve to generally describe Florida Statute § 893.13 and do not limit the application of § 775.084(1)(a), (3) to only purchase or possession offenses....
Copy

Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 738786

...f Law Enforcement (FDLE) must be reversed. They were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing and there is no statutory reference for these costs on either the sentence or order of probation, authorizing such assessment. The state argues that section 893.13(8)(a) authorizes the drug abuse cost assessment, and that section 939.01(1) authorizes the cost assessment for FDLE....
...t in all criminal cases, the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, if requested and documented by such agencies, shall be included and entered in the judgment rendered against the convicted person. Section 893.13(8)(b) provides that a court can assess any defendant convicted of a violation of that section the amount of $100.00 for the trust fund of the Department of Law Enforcement, to be used by the statewide criminal analysis laboratory system....
...ument the cost as required by section 939.01); Daniels v. State, 656 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (cost award to FDLE stricken where there was no documentation for the cost). Further we note that cost awards for the drug abuse program authorized by section 893.13(8)(a) and for the FDLE trust fund (for the criminal analysis laboratory system) pursuant to section 893.13(8)(b) are discretionary with the court....
Copy

Nelson v. State, 16 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12526, 2009 WL 2601784

...or an alternative sentence under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2008). We answer yes, and remand for the circuit court to consider the defendant's motion for alternative sentencing. The State charged the defendant with possession of cocaine under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), plus three misdemeanors....
...During the plea colloquy, the defendant moved for alternative sentencing under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2008), which states: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), the court may either adjudge the defendant guilty or stay and withhold the adjudication of guilt; and, in either case, it may stay and withhold the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on drug offender probation....
...es enumerated in chapter 893. 978 So.2d at 264. We held in Langdon that a defendant who has a felony conviction of a non-drug related offense is not eligible to receive an alternate sentence under section 948.034. Id. We reached that holding because section 893.13 expressly states that a court may sentence a defendant to probation under section 948.034 if the defendant has not previously been convicted of a non-drug felony. Id. at 264-65 (citing § 893.13(10) and (11), Fla. Stat.). Section 893.13 does not prohibit a court from considering an alternative sentence under section 948.20 if the defendant has been convicted of a non-drug felony....
...NOTES [1] Although not material to this opinion, the Legislature, in 2009, amended the first paragraph of section 948.20 as follows: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), or other nonviolent felony if such nonviolent felony is committed on or after July 1, 2009, and notwithstanding s....
Copy

State v. Scates, 585 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 158582

...On the authority of both Lane and Baxter, we reverse appellee's sentence and remand to the trial court with directions that appellee be sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence. We also certify a question of great public importance. Appellee pled guilty to purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...tance abuse addictions; and appellee was both amenable to and capable of meaningful rehabilitation back into society. This court has previously held that section 397.12 does not provide an exception to the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement of section 893.13(1)(e). Lane, 582 So.2d at 78. See also State v. Ross, 447 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 456 So.2d 1182 (1984). Further, we recognize that Herrin concerned the 1987 version of section 893.13(1)(e), before the 1989 amendment which added the three year minimum mandatory clause to that section....
...there would be sound reasoning to support the trial judge's actions concerning this appellee. Accordingly, we now certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES 1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISION OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? REVERSED and REMANDED and QUESTION CERTIFIED....
Copy

Paige v. State, 641 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 419606

...See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Davis v. State, 594 So.2d 264 (Fla. 1992); State v. Angel, 547 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). After this judgment was entered, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that section 893.13(1)(i) is unconstitutional because the phrase "public housing facility" is vague and does not give adequate notice as to what conduct is prohibited. Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla. 1994). However, Paige's conviction of a lesser included offense, section 893.13(1)(a)(1) (possession of cocaine with intent to sell) can be sustained pursuant to section 924.34....
...was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment against him for the lesser offense of committing an unnatural act); Morris v. State, 261 So.2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (same). In the present case, Paige was convicted of violating section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1991) which provides as follows: (i) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell, purchase, manufacture,...
...Any person who violates this paragraph with respect to: 1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), or (2)(b) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.... Section 893.13(1)(a)1....
...Any person who violates this provision with respect to: 1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), or (2)(b) is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084. Under section 893.13(1)(a)1, the state had the burden of proving that Paige possessed cocaine with the intent to sell within two hundred feet of a public housing facility. In establishing this offense, the state necessarily must have proved that Paige possessed cocaine with intent to sell it under section 893.13(1)(a). Thus possession with intent to sell under 893.13(1)(a) is a necessarily included lesser offense of possession with intent to sell within two hundred feet of a public housing facility....
...See Ruiz v. State, 488 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (simple possession of *182 cocaine was a necessarily included lesser offense of possession of cocaine within a prison). Accordingly, we remand this cause with directions to enter a judgment of guilt as to section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes, and to resentence Paige accordingly. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to enter a new judgment and to resentence. GOSHORN, J., concurs. THOMPSON, J., concurs specially in result only without opinion. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(i)(1), Fla....
Copy

L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 1357736, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5262

...he officer’s opinion was admissible as lay opinion testimony under Section 90.701, Florida Statutes. BACKGROUND This case is a typical marijuana possession case. L.L., a juvenile, was charged with one ' count of simple possession of cannabis under Section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Lord v. State, 616 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 100288

...State, 589 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991): Whether the possession of an object that has a common legitimate use, which contains trace amounts of cocaine, without more, is sufficient to sustain a felony conviction for knowing possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...We hold, accordingly, that the mere presence of trace amounts of cocaine on a common object or implement in possession of an accused, where the object or implement is designed and widely used for other legitimate purposes, is insufficient to support a felony conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Ishmael v. State, 735 So. 2d 509 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

Cited 5 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 WL 247208

used to habitualize him were violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995) for purchase or possession
Copy

Jenkins v. State, 694 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 185594

...This appeal follows. We conclude that the outcome of this appeal is controlled by the recent decision in Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996). Chicone was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of sections 893.13(1)(f) and 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Although Chicone involved drug possession offenses and the offense of which appellant was convicted proscribed drug sales, given the supreme court's rationale for its holding, this distinction does not appear to us to be a material one. Like the statutes defining the offenses of which Chicone was convicted, section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), which defines the offense of which appellant was convicted, does not expressly require guilty knowledge. However, also like the statutes defining the offenses of which Chicone was convicted, section 893.13(1)(c) does not contain a clear expression that guilty knowledge is not a necessary element....
Copy

State v. Duggins, 691 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 168599

...the arrest resulted in the seizure of thirty-one grams of cannabis. After the DUI investigation was completed, the appellee was also charged with driving while under the influence. The appellee was charged with possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and with obstructing an officer without violence in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

St. Fabre v. State, 548 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 103994

...Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn J. Mosley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. BARFIELD, Judge. Appellant asserts that his convictions for sale of cocaine under section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), and for possession of the same cocaine under section 893.13(1)(e) [1] violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. We disagree and affirm the convictions. Appellant was charged with conspiracy, trafficking, sale and possession of cocaine, possession of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was found guilty of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e) and sale, delivery or possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), both convictions predicated on his sale of one piece of cocaine to a confidential informant....
...or consecutively. For the purpose of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial. Under this test, violation of section 893.13(1)(e) and violation of section 893.13(1)(a) are separate offenses, even when they are both predicated on the same act or transaction....
...of the charged crimes, as opposed to the language of the charging document" (emphasis in the original). *799 The Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (2d Ed., Supp. 1987) lists no "category 1" lesser included offenses of violation of section 893.13(1)(a). The "category 2" lesser included offenses are attempts, except when delivery is charged; simple possession, section 893.13(1)(e), if possession with intent to sell is charged; and possession or delivery without consideration of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, section 893.13(1)(f), if possession or delivery of cannabis is charged. Appellant relies on the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal in Gordon v. State [4] which held that convictions for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, each a violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), arising out of a single transaction involving the same controlled substance, violated double jeopardy principles because the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell is necessa...
...ortion of our Carawan analysis." 528 So.2d at 914. In Wheeler v. State, 549 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court, en banc, reached the same ultimate conclusion reached in Gordon, but rejected its rationale. The court found that the structure of section 893.13(1)(a) indicates that sale and possession with intent to sell are alternative ways of violating the statute and that the legislature intended by this subsection to punish either the completed sale, manufacture or delivery of an illegal...
...nish as separate crimes the offenses of sale of an illegal drug and possession with intent to sell the drug, it "would have proscribed each offense in separate subsections of the statute, as it did with simple possession of a controlled substance in section 893.13(1)(e)." (opinion at p....
...ubsection (e) is not a necessarily lesser included offense of sale of the same cocaine under subsection (a), citing Smith. However, in this case the information, the verdict form, and the judgment each state that appellant was convicted of violating section 893.13(1)(a) by sale, delivery or possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine....
...t to sell cocaine. While possession of cocaine under subsection (e) is a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell cocaine under subsection (a), it is not a necessarily lesser included offense. Nevertheless, we find that violation of section 893.13(1)(e) is not a necessarily lesser included offense of violation of section 893.13(1)(a), and that the structure of the statute indicates that the legislature intended to punish these offenses separately....
...But even under a Carawan "lenity" analysis, in which doubt would have to be resolved in favor of the defendant if there were any indication in the statute that would reasonably support a finding that the legislature intended to punish the offenses only once, we find nothing in section 893.13 which would reasonably support a finding that the legislature did not intend to punish separately violations of separate subsections of the statute which appear to address separate evils....
Copy

Green v. State, 18 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12885, 2009 WL 2835210

...l. We grant the petition as it relates to one of the grounds, and we deny, without comment, the remaining ground. Green was convicted after jury trial of trafficking in cocaine in an amount of 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams in violation of section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003); misdemeanor possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b); and possession of ten or more counterfeit bills in violation of section 831.08, Florida Statutes (2003)....
Copy

State v. Adkins, 71 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15417, 2011 WL 4467637

...Like Anderson , a circuit court decision for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida, also appears to be at odds with Shelton and Washington. See State v. Barnett, Nos. 11-CF-003124, 11-CF-005345, et al. (Fla. 13th Cir.Ct.2011). Section 893.13 is the criminal statute most commonly used in Florida to enforce our laws against the manufacture, possession, and sale of illegal drugs....
Copy

Jones v. State, 623 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 341118

...The public defender's lien of $400 is stricken, without prejudice to reimpose it on remand, after compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). AFFIRMED in part; Lien QUASHED; REMANDED. HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)1., Fla....
Copy

Turner v. State, 661 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 516437

...facility. The court concluded that double jeopardy principles barred Rozier's conviction for both crimes. See also Shivers v. State, 593 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse Turner's conviction for possession of cocaine pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a) and vacate the sentence imposed for that crime....
...The jury found the defendant guilty of two separate offenses: possession of cocaine and introduction of contraband into a county detention facility. I think these are two separate offenses separately punishable under Florida law. § 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1993). NOTES [1] §§ 893.13(6)(a), 893.03(2)(a)4, Fla....
...893.02(4)... ." [3] Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [4] Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987). [5] The statute involved in Rozier was section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1989), which provided: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner......
Copy

Penn v. State, 941 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3068361

...possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell. The trial court denied the claim as without merit. However, a defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell. § 893.13(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2001); Brown v....
Copy

McKnight v. State, 759 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 736323

...essly prohibited for possession of cocaine, and the sentence exceeds the maximum permissible non-habitual offender sentence for that offense. See § 775.084(1)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996) (prohibiting habitual offender sentencing for violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, "relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance"); § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Hill v. State, 830 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31322643

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. ORFINGER, R.B., J. Kenta S. Hill appeals his conviction of principal to sale and delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a place of worship pursuant to sections 893.13(1)(e) and 777.011, Florida Statutes (2001)....
...Hill argues, as he did below, that the foregoing testimony was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug transaction occurred "within 1,000 feet of a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services," as required by section 893.13(1)(e)....
...That was not done here. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse Hill's conviction and remand this matter for entry of a judgment and sentence for *878 the lesser included offense of principal to sale or delivery of a controlled substance pursuant to sections 893.13(1)(a)1....
Copy

Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 360150

...for conspiracy to distribute controlled substance based upon a lab report admitted under the federal business records exception rule because this exception was "firmly rooted"). Cf. United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir.1997). NOTES [1] § 893.13(1), Fla. Stat. [2] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Roberts v. State, 557 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 20382

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. DANIEL, Chief Judge. Defendant, Reginald Roberts, appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the offenses of possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), and sale or delivery of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Nelson v. State, 811 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 341827

...Thus, each topic addressed in the session law had a logical connection to a single subject, i.e., the increased liberty-deprivation sanctions utilized in punishing those offenders convicted of using guns to commit violent crimes. See Burch v. State, 558 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1990) (upholding section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), finding that each topic in chapter 87-243 had a logical relationship to the single subject of controlling crime)....
Copy

Harris v. State, 959 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1790751

...The decision in Doty cannot be reconciled with the holding in Watts. I would reject Harris's argument since it is based on a legal principle — as articulated in Doty — that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Watts. [9] NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(e)(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that this crime is a first-degree felony). [2] § 951.22, Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that this crime is a third-degree felony). [3] § 893.13(6)(a) (providing that this crime is a third-degree felony). [4] § 843.02 Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that this crime is a first-degree misdemeanor). [5] § 893.13(6)(a) (providing that this offense is a third-degree felony). [6] § 893.13(6)(b) (providing that this offense is a first-degree misdemeanor)....
Copy

Harris v. State, 641 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 267926

...s knowledge and experience that the lump was crack cocaine contained in a plastic bag. Hudson then retrieved a baggie from Harris's pocket which contained crack cocaine. Harris was arrested and charged by information with possession of cocaine under section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, possession of cocaine with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school....
Copy

Jean v. State, 764 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 393477

...Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Debra Rescigno, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges his conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship, asserting that section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), is facially unconstitutional under the vagueness doctrine....
...A third officer, Officer Hermanson, was acting as the "cover officer" for the undercover unit. He described the area in which the drug purchase took place. He stated that there was a "regular church" less than two blocks away which conducted nightly services as well as Sunday daytime masses. Section 893.13(1)(e) provides the following, in pertinent part: Except as authorized in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, *607 or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance...
...t `is of no due process significance unless the possibility ripens into a prosecution.'") (quoting Posters `N' Things, Ltd. v. U.S., 511 U.S. 513, 114 S.Ct. 1747, 128 L.Ed.2d 539 (1994) (quotation omitted)), rev. denied, 705 So.2d 901 (Fla.1998). As section 893.13(1)(e), which concerns the possession, sale and delivery of narcotics, does not implicate constitutionally protected conduct, this court must assess whether it is "impermissibly vague in all of its applications." See Travis v....
...vagueness nor complain of its vagueness as applied to the hypothetical conduct of others." Barnes, 686 So.2d at 636. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, appellant's conduct fell within the conduct proscribed by the plain meaning of section *608 893.13(1)(e)....
...He testified that it was a "regular" church, which held nightly services as well as Sunday services. Appellant presented no evidence on this issue at all. We find the state's evidence sufficient to show that appellant's conduct clearly fell within the statutory prohibition. Thus, because section 893.13(1) is not impermissibly vague in all of its applications, as demonstrated by the record in this case, it is facially constitutional....
Copy

Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...The trial court denied the appellant/defendant's motion to suppress evidence on grounds that a police search of the defendant's car was a valid inventory search. The defendant thereafter plead nolo contendere to possession of more than 5 grams of marijuana in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(e)....
Copy

Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 962 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1931293

...of the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice." Id.; see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294. In Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla. 1994), the supreme court held that the term "public housing facility" in section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), violated the Due Process Clause because it did "not give adequate notice of what conduct [was] prohibited" and because its "imprecision" invited "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Id. at 842. Section 893.13(1)(i) imposed enhanced penalties upon those who sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or possessed controlled substances within 200 feet of a public housing facility....
Copy

Fletcher v. State, 491 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1627

...Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph N. D'Achille, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. DAUKSCH, Judge. Appellant appeals his conviction for "unlawful sale or delivery for consideration" of cannabis in violation of Section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1983) and the costs imposed pursuant to Section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985) and Section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...Appellant filed a motion to elect to require the prosecution to elect between sale or delivery which was denied by the trial court. Appellant also requested the jury be instructed on the lesser included charge of delivery without consideration pursuant to Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1983) which was denied....
Copy

Grant v. State, 864 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 32735

...GROSS, J. Dwayne Grant was arrested with 28 ziplock bags of marijuana in his pants pocket. The total weight of the marijuana was 27.3 grams. The probable cause affidavit indicated that Grant was arrested for possession of over 20 grams of cannabis. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). The state filed an information charging Grant with possession of cannabis with intent to sell, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a)2....
...Defense counsel requested the jury instruction for possession of over 20 grams of cannabis as a lesser included offense. Neither the defense nor the state requested any other lesser included offense. Both possession of cannabis with intent to sell and possession of over 20 grams of cannabis are third degree felonies. See § 893.13(1)(a)2....
...cannabis was a lesser included offense of possession of cannabis with intent to sell. The judge did not charge the jury concerning any other lesser included offense, such as possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis, a first degree misdemeanor. See § 893.13(6)(b)....
Copy

Brown v. State, 666 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 2274

...osed without notice and an opportunity to be heard). *242 Here, although the trial court failed to cite the statute number supporting the assessment to the Orange County Drug Abuse Trust Fund, the assessment is statutorily authorized under paragraph 893.13(4)(a) [2] and section 893.165, Florida Statutes (1991). These statutes were discussed in detail in Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc): Section 893.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), authorizes the trial court to impose an additional assessment up to the amount of the relevant fine in a drug case....
...It likewise alleviates any fear that Brown might be punished for unemployment that he did not seek or cause. However, to eliminate any possible confusion, we modify the final judgment to provide that Brown work "to the best of his ability." AFFIRMED as MODIFIED. PETERSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur. NOTES [1] §§ 893.13(6)(a), 893.03(2)(a)4, Fla. Stat. (1993). [2] Effective October 1, 1993, paragraph 893.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) was amended. See ch. 93-194, § 4, at 1768, Laws of Fla. It was again amended and transferred to section 893.13(8)(a) effective January 1, 1994....
Copy

Rodriguez v. State, 807 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 112130

...probable cause necessary to lawfully seize the contraband. We reverse the circuit court's denial of Rodriguez's motion to suppress evidence and remand with directions to discharge him. DAVIS, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Jennings v. State, 667 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 27878

...Mario Lavon Jennings appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school with intent to sell it (three counts), and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Mr. Jennings argues that section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), which makes such a sale of cocaine — or its possession in such circumstances with intent to sell — a more serious crime if committed "between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 a.m.," is unconstitutionally vague. We find no constitutional infirmity and affirm. Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), outlaws the sale, manufacture, delivery — or the possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver — of any of a number of controlled substances....
...r deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...and 12 a.m." The conduct for which Mr. Jennings was convicted under subsection (1)(c) occurred after noon but before midnight. Mr. Jennings argues on appeal that the subsection is unconstitutionally vague because the term "12 a.m." is ambiguous. He contends that section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993) fails to put reasonable people on notice whether the period in which selling or possessing cocaine with intent to sell constitutes a first degree felony (as opposed to a second degree felony) ends just before noon or twelve hours later....
...Manfredonia, 649 So.2d 1388, 1390 (Fla. 1995) (Even if a statute "is not a paradigm of legislative drafting... . this reason alone cannot justify invalidating the statute."). The present statute poses no danger, moreover, that innocent conduct will be punished as a crime. Section 893.13(1)(a) prohibits the sale and possession with intent to sell of controlled substances whatever the time of day....
...vide a greater penalty for drug sales at morning recess than for sales during the lunch hour or after school lets out. We can think of little justification for such an interpretation of the statute. In context, it is clear that the term "12 a.m." in section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) must mean "midnight," by which time — the Legislature had reason to hope — school children will be at home fast asleep....
...or of the 2400 system. State v. Hart, 219 N.J. Super. 278, 530 A.2d 332, 334 n. 1 (1987). The Florida Legislature is not, of course, under any obligation to follow recommendations from the Naval Observatory, official or otherwise. With the exception of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), however, the Legislature has avoided confusion that might flow from use of the terms "12 a.m." and "12 p.m.," opting instead for clearer language....
....m. Saturday and seven o'clock a.m. Monday"). The Legislature subsequently amended this section to read, "between twelve o'clock midnight Saturday and 7:00 o'clock A.M. Monday." Ch. 23746, Laws of Fla. (1947). Perhaps the Legislature will also amend section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), in a similar fashion, to bring it up to its customary standard of precision....
Copy

Smith v. State, 79 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 989, 2012 WL 204998

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 25, 2012. Jerry W. Smith, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); Little v....
Copy

White v. State, 971 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 36620

...ellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. GROSS, J. Christopher White appeals his conviction after a jury trial of sale or delivery of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005)....
Copy

McHolder v. State, 917 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 64429

...Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. *1044 ORFINGER, J. Eddie McHolder appeals from his conviction for sale of a controlled substance (cocaine) within 1,000 feet of a place of worship in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003), and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a place of worship in violation of sections 893.03(2)(a)4. and 893.13(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003)....
...because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he possessed and sold cocaine within 1,000 feet of a "physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services" pursuant *1046 to section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004)....
Copy

Valentin v. State, 974 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 508594

...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas A. Palmer, Assistant. Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. WARNER, J. Appellant was convicted for possession of cocaine with intent to sell within one thousand feet of a publicly owned park in violation of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006)....
...He did not see Valentin talk to anyone or do anything to suggest an intent to sell in the park. Not only was the evidence insufficient to show an intent to sell generally, nothing would show that Valentin had an intent to sell within the park as required by the statute. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
Copy

State v. Dickerson, 811 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 384953

...The State challenges a trial court order that dismisses a cocaine possession charge against the appellee, Noah Dickerson. We reverse. On September 28, 2000, the State filed an information charging Dickerson with actual or constructive possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), and giving a false name while being detained or arrested in violation of section 901.36(1), Florida Statutes (2000)....
Copy

Natalia Lorena Citron v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 882 F.3d 1380 (11th Cir. 2018).

Cited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...She petitions this Court to review that denial; however, in light of our decision to grant her initial petition, we dismiss Cintron’s second petition as moot. 2 Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 3 of 17 § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...Cintron appealed to BIA, which agreed with the immigration judge that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal because of the Florida conviction. The BIA reached two conclusions about Cintron’s Florida conviction. First, it determined that although a § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...If instead of listing alternative elements a statute lists alternative means, any one of which would not constitute an aggravated felony, then the statute is indivisible and categorically cannot constitute a generic offense. See id. at 2256- 57. B. Florida Statutes § 893.135(1)(c)1. Is Categorically Overbroad and Indivisible; Thus, Cintron’s Conviction Does Not Qualify as an Aggravated Felony Under the INA. At the time of Cintron’s conviction, Florida Statutes § 893.135(1)(c)1. provided: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxy...
...han 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in illegal drugs,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(c)1.5 5 We here discuss the 2007 version of Florida Statutes § 893.135, which was in effect on the date Cintron’s offense was committed. See Fla. Stat. § 893.135 (2007). 7 Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 8 of 17 Both parties agree that a violation of Florida Statutes § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...n of,” listed alternative elements creating six distinct narcotics crimes or alternative means of committing a single crime. For the reasons that follow, we hold that these six alternative methods of commission were means, not elements, so that § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...indivisibility. Id. at 2257. “But between those documents and state law, that kind of indeterminacy should prove more the exception than the rule.” Id. Here, “the statute on its face” strongly suggested indivisibility. Id. at 2256. Section 893.135(1)(c)1....
...Thus, the buyer and seller . . . were, in fact, agreeing to commit the same crime (trafficking), albeit in different ways (one by 7 The cocaine trafficking statute is structured identically to the statute at issue in this case. Compare Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1., with Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(c)1. 10 Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 11 of 17 purchasing, the other by selling).” Id....
...the several acts delineated in the statute, including sale or delivery. A conspiracy to commit trafficking only requires that the co-conspirators agree to commit the same specified offense, not the same act.”). Numerous other Florida state court decisions have described § 893.135 in ways that suggest it set forth a single “trafficking” crime that could be committed in a variety of ways....
...3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (“[O]ne may commit the crime of trafficking in methamphetamine, inter alia, by manufacturing the drug in specified quantities.”); Cogbill v. State, 940 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (“[Section 893.135(f)] sets forth a number of alternate forms of conduct, any of which constitute the proscribed offense.”); McCluster v....
...3d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012), concerns the statute under which Cintron was convicted. Contrary to the government’s argument, though, Burson does not support its position; indeed, Burson is fully consistent with our conclusion that Florida Statutes § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, (2) cocaine or any mixture containing cocaine, (3) in the amount of 28 grams or more, but less than 150 kilograms.” 975 So. 2d at 499 (citing Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.)....
... Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 14 of 17 convicted was divisible. But the government’s cited authority largely concerns a different Florida controlled substance statute with a different structure, Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a). That statute provides that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” This Court recently held that Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible, see Spaho v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1172, 1177 (11th Cir. 2016), and the government argues that, because the statutes are similar, we are compelled to reach the same divisibility conclusion with respect to § 893.135(1)(c)1. Not so. Importantly, unlike § 893.135(1)(c)1., § 893.13(1)(a) lacks any language indicating that the six methods of commission are to be treated as a single offense. The impact of this textual distinction—which renders § 893.135(1)(c)1. indivisible and § 893.13(1)(a) divisible—is played out in Florida caselaw. For example, in Tyler v. State, 107 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013), the First District Court of Appeal held that under § 893.13(1)(a) the State could charge a defendant both with possession with intent to sell a controlled substance and sale of that same controlled substance without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause....
...The court explained, “possession with intent to sell, on the one hand, and the actual sale, on the other, of the same illicit substance should be viewed, not as alternative 14 Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 15 of 17 ways in which section 893.13(1)(a) could be violated, but as two separate crimes, albeit proscribed by the same, undivided subsection of the same statute.” Id. The Tyler court also recognized that “[i]n other contexts, the courts have distinguished be...
...In those contexts, “[w]hen a single statutory offense describes multiple alternative acts, each of which is prohibited, each separate prohibited act does not constitute a separate offense for double jeopardy purposes since there is but one statutory offense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 893.135(1)(c)1. was just this type of single statutory offense. It provided that the alternative methods of commission constitute “a felony . . . known as ‘trafficking in illegal drugs.’” Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(c)1. (emphasis added). The government also contends that Florida’s model jury instructions for § 893.135 indicated divisibility, but we think the instructions only echo this distinction we have identified between that statute and § 893.13(1)(a). For § 893.135, the instructions provided: “To prove the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Std....
...2007). These instructions described one crime: “Trafficking in Illegal 15 Case: 15-12344 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 16 of 17 Drugs.”8 By contrast, the instructions for § 893.13 provide, “[t]o prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following (applicable number) elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Std....
...Cases (No. 2013-05), 153 So. 3d 192, 196 (Fla. 2014). These instructions provide trial courts a blueprint for describing multiple crimes, all chargeable under the same statute. For these reasons, we are unmoved by the government’s plea that we construe § 893.135(1)(c)1. as divisible. III. CONCLUSION A plain reading of the statute, aided by the weight of Florida authority, indicates that Florida Statutes § 893.135(1)(c)1....
Copy

Adams v. State, 76 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20461, 2011 WL 6372968

...Before EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. As held by four unanimous district courts of appeal, including this one, we again reject Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) and hold that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional....
Copy

Ramon Duran Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 910 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2018).

Cited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

for cocaine possession under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (6)(a) counts as a conviction of an offense
Copy

Gunn v. State, 336 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. ALDERMAN, Judge. After trial by jury defendant was found guilty of the offense of possession of more than five grams of cannabis, contrary to Section 893.13(1)(e) [1] and 893.13(1)(f) [2] , Florida Statutes (1973)....
...its benefit." In our opinion this section is inapplicable. It relates only to the various statutory exemptions or exceptions specifically set forth in Chapter 893. For example, an exception to the crime of possession of a controlled substance under § 893.13(1)(e) is *689 that the controlled substance "......
...If the defendant relied upon such an exception as a defense, then the burden of proof would be upon the defendant. A different situation exists with reference to the weight of the cannabis. If the State as in this case has not alleged and proven a prior conviction under § 893.13(1)(f) it is only the weight of the cannabis that determines whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor....
...Since the State would be unable to establish a prima facie case without introducing the cannabis into evidence, the conviction is reversed and the case remanded with instruction that the appellant be discharged. MAGER, C.J., and WILLIAMS, W.C., III, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(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 from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practition...
...herwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084. * Note.-Bracketed language inserted by the editors. [2] Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(f) If the first offense is the possession or delivery without consideration of not more than 5 grams of cannabis, that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 and § 775.083....
Copy

State v. Bell, 564 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 108830

...Team, executed the warrant and in doing so executed a "no-knock" raid. As a result of the search, defendants were found to be in possession of over 200 grams of cocaine and a firearm. The state charged defendant Bell with committing the offenses of delivering cocaine, section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1985), possession of cocaine, section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), trafficking in cocaine, section 893.135(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1985), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1985). The state charged defendant Priester with committing the offense of trafficking in cocaine, section 893.135(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1985)....
Copy

Register v. State, 715 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 161660

...failed to make a prima facie case of the crime charged. Accordingly, we reverse Register's conviction of procurement for prostitution (Count One). We affirm his conviction and sentence for misdemeanor possession of marijuana (Count Two) pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...h. If it had intended to classify the act of solicitation of a minor as a felony, the Florida Legislature easily could have done so. We REVERSE the conviction in Count One pursuant to section 796.03 and AFFIRM the conviction in Count Two pursuant to section 893.13....
Copy

Stridiron v. State, 672 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 194327

...right to appeal the issue of whether his right to speedy trial had been compromised. We hold that his right was not compromised and affirm. It appears that Stridiron was charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 578 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 56359

...Under Florida law a person comes into being upon birth. Duncan v. Flynn, 342 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), adopted, 358 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1978). Appellant was over eighteen and each of appellant's children obviously were persons under the age of eighteen. Section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989) says: (c) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to deliver any controlled substance to a person under the age of 18 years, or to use or hire a person...
...AFTER BIRTH IS A VIOLATION OF FLORIDA LAW? CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED. COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion. COBB, Judge, concurring specially. I concur with the majority opinion by Judge Dauksch. The provisions of section 893.13(1)(c) clearly prohibit delivery of a controlled substance from a person eighteen years of age or older to a person under the age of eighteen....
...[1] The only legitimate issue, as I see it, is whether the state's evidence was sufficient to establish mens rea. My concern, unlike that of the dissent, focuses on the intent of the defendant, not that of the legislature. This is so because the clear and unequivocal language of the statute ( i.e., § 893.13) is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretation of the word "delivery." Under the instant factual evidence, there can be no doubt that cocaine was delivered from one person to another person, both in 1987 and 1989....
...9. Certainly, it is no undue burden upon an expectant mother to avoid cocaine use during the last several days of her pregnancy. If the Florida Legislature wishes to exempt the transmission of cocaine through the umbilical cord from the operation of section 893.13 for the public policy reasons set forth in the dissent, that is its prerogative....
...ly the law. [2] Accordingly, I concur with Judge Dauksch that the instant convictions must be affirmed. W. SHARP, Judge, dissenting. Johnson appeals from two convictions for delivering a controlled substance to her two minor children in violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (1989)....
...sixty-to-ninety second period after they were expelled from her birth canal but before their cords were severed. The application of this statute to this concept of "delivery" presents a case of first impression in this state. Because I conclude that section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...the child was born which, of course, would probably have killed both herself and her child. This illustrates the absurdity of applying the delivery-of-a-drug statute to this scenario. However, in my view, the primary question in this case is whether section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...My review of other pertinant legislative enactments, specifically chapter 415, leads me to conclude in this case that the Legislature expressly chose to treat the problem of drug dependent mothers and newborns as a public health problem and that it considered but rejected imposing criminal sanctions, via section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...m. It also recommends that no punitive measures be taken against pregnant women who are users of illicit drugs when no other illegal acts, including drug-related offenses, have been committed. See 1990 Policy Statement. In summary, I would hold that section 893.13(1)(c)1....
...o that blood flow is a voluntary act, and the cocaine destination is far more certain than if it were placed into the United States Mail. [2] See E. Sergeant, "Justice Touched with Fire," in Mr. Justice Holmes 206-207, (F. Frankfurter ed. 1931). [1] Section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (1989) provides as follows: 893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 61 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5351, 2011 WL 1414685

...ant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Joshua R. Heller and Brooke Poland, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. VAN NORTWICK, J. Reginald Thomas appeals his conviction for selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, contrary to section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, contrary to section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006)....
...§ 775.021(4)(b)2, Fla. Stat. While the State agrees that Thomas' convictions do constitute double jeopardy, we must disagree and affirm. Both Thomas and the State assert that appellant's two convictions are violations of the same criminal statute, section 893.13(1)(c). Section 893.13(1)(c) provides: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s....
...county, or municipal park, a community center, or a publicly owned recreational facility. Of course, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell, manufacture or deliver, regardless of the locale of such possession, is proscribed by section 893.13(1)(a)....
...As the question is worded and answered in McCloud, the instant convictions would not constitute double jeopardy and thus would be permissible. It was apparently of no significance to the Supreme Court that both offenses at issue in McCloud were proscribed by the same statute: section 893.13(1)(a)....
...ously convicted of "sale of cocaine and possession or possession with intent to sell or deliver." As noted, both Thomas and the State assert that the two offenses for which Thomas was convicted constitute a violation of a single statutory provision: section 893.13(1)(c). But, in fact, a different statute, section 893.13(1)(a), is the statutory provision which proscribes sale of a controlled substance as well as possession with intent to sell....
...Subsection (1)(c) merely increases the gravity of the offense and the severity of the penalty when the sale or possession with intent to sell occurs within 1000 feet of a school or day care. See Jennings v. State, 667 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)("Section 893.13(1)(a) prohibits the sale and possession with intent to sell of controlled substances whatever the time of day....
Copy

Horne v. State, 6 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2905, 2009 WL 839034

...We reverse the denial of claims one and two, in part. We affirm the postconviction court's order in all other respects without further comment. Facts Mr. Horne entered an open plea of guilty to all counts in six different circuit court cases: 03-04387 1. Possession of a controlled substance, § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002) 04-12645 1. Delivery of a controlled substance, § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) 2. Possession of a controlled substance, § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...umerated in the drug offender probation statute. See § 948.20, Fla. Stat. (2005). In denying the claim, the postconviction court relied upon section 948.034, finding that this section allows imposition of "drug offender probation" for violations of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2005)....
...948.034. Of all of Mr. Horne's convictions, only his two convictions for possession of a controlled substance are eligible for drug offender probation under section 948.20. See id. (stating that drug offender probation applies only to violations of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a))....
Copy

Grene v. State, 702 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 252248

...possession with intent to sell within 1000' of a school. Section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), allows enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender so long as "the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced ... is not a violation of § 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance." § 775.084(1)(a)(3) (emphasis added). Here, since possession with intent to sell is a violation of § 893.13 which relates to the possession of a controlled substance, habitual offender sentencing was improper....
Copy

State v. Schuck, 913 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2373878

...search and seizure was violated when the officer stopped Schuck's car for a broken taillight. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. Schuck was charged by information with possession of cannabis, with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Chambers v. State, 700 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 593900

...to produce identification, is immaterial because at the time Chambers moved his feet, he was not under arrest nor seized under the objective test of the Fourth Amendment. AFFIRMED. ANTOON, J., concurs. THOMPSON, J., concurs in result only. NOTES [1] § 893.135(1)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). [3] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Craig v. State, 643 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 515729

...rial court reimposes the $60 costs to be paid to First Step of Volusia County, the trial court shall reference the statutory authority for the imposition of such costs. Sentences VACATED; cause REMANDED. COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a)1, Fla....
Copy

GL v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2632106

...Accordingly, we REVERSE the trial court's order and REMAND for sentencing in accordance with the DJJ's recommendation or a sentence that is justified by the record with stated reasons. See, e.g., S.S.M., 814 So.2d at 1235. THOMPSON, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2004). [2] § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Jennings v. State, 682 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1996).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1996 WL 627600

...We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Mario Jennings was convicted of one count of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and three counts of possessing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school with the intent to sell. Pursuant to section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), the sale or possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, although otherwise a second-degree felony, is a first-degree felony if the crime is committed within 1000 feet of a school and occurs "between the hours of 6 a.m....
..." (Emphasis added). Since the incidents that gave rise to the convictions occurred on June 29, 1994, at 7:28 p.m. and on July 2, 1994, at 1:20 p.m., Jennings was convicted of a first-degree felony. On appeal, Jennings argued that the term "12 a.m." in section 893.13(1)(c) is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to put reasonable persons on notice as to whether the period of time in which an offense is subject to reclassification ends at noon or midnight....
...The First District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and held that in context 12 a.m. means midnight. We agree and adopt the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Benton in the court below. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court and sustain that portion of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), containing the reference to 12 a.m....
Copy

TJ v. State, 743 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 933289

...We do not recede from this requirement. But see C.F. v. State, 603 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Affirmed. PATTERSON, C.J., CAMPBELL, THREADGILL, PARKER, BLUE, FULMER, WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, GREEN, CASANUEVA, SALCINES, STRINGER, and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). [2] See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Simmons, 887 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22658101

...We agree and reverse for the reinstatement of the charges. In case number 02-9992, Eddie Simmons was charged with the sale, manufacture, delivery and/or possession of cocaine in an encounter with undercover detective A. Pacheco on April 4, 2002 in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2001)....
...Any person who violates this provision with respect to: 1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

White v. State, 737 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 495487

...The officer's stop of White's car was improper, and all evidence seized as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. We reverse White's convictions, and we remand with directions to discharge him. Reversed and remanded. GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Smart v. City of Miami, 107 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68344, 2015 WL 3409329

...Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a crime governed by Section 790.23, Florida Statutes. Any person who violates Section 790.23, Florida Statutes, “commits a felony of the second degree.” § 790.23(3), Fla. Stat. Possession with intent to distribute cocaine is a crime governed by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. A person committing this crime “commits a felony of the second degree.” § 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla....
...not have justified a nineteen-month incarceration without bond because only capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment are nonbondable. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.131(a) Possession with intent to distribute marijuana is a crime governed by' Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. A person committing this crime “commits a felony of the third degree.” § 893.13(l)(a)2., Fla....
Copy

Shanks v. State, 82 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1020517, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4853

...eing fully advised in the premises, this Court denies the Petition to Expunge/Seal, pursuant to F.S. § 943.059.” We reverse and remand. Earlier Mr. Shanks had entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009)....
Copy

Garcia v. State, 504 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 848

...2d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1986), those authorities lend no support to the proposition that the quantity of the drug involved justifies departure. The cited cases deal with convictions for trafficking or conspiracy to traffic, not with possession of contraband. See § 893.135, Fla. Stat. (1983). Section 893.135 increases the length of a trafficking sentence in proportion to the amount of contraband involved; in the cases relied on by the state, the amount of contraband is relevant to the severity of the sentence. Defendant Garcia, however, was found guilty of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983). Unlike section 893.135, section 893.13 omits a sentencing schedule related to the amount of contraband seized....
Copy

Lamb v. State, 55 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3611, 2011 WL 923946

...tion for a controlled substance from Dr. Gillis on August 13, 2008, by withholding information that she had received a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from Dr. Hays of the Kenaday Medical Clinic on August 4, 2008. See § 893.13(7)(a)(8)....
Copy

McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 111328

...A county judge signed the search warrant based on Captain Lee's affidavit and the ensuing search of the defendant's residence resulted in the seizure of marijuana plants. The state then charged the defendant with manufacturing cannabis in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 369901

...Defendant argues that his ten (10) year sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine is illegal because "Section 775.084(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if the felony is `a violation of Section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.'" Barber v....
Copy

Hilgeman v. State, 790 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 627430

...1st DCA 1995) (presence of consensual encounter is factual question, and trial court's answer to that question should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous). REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to discharge Hilgeman. PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Harris v. State, 932 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1735118

...Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Mose Harris appeals a judgment of conviction and habitual felony offender sentence for the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (2004)....
Copy

Drayton v. State, 601 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 143620

...Snyder, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dell H. Edwards, Assistant Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. LEHAN, Judge. Defendant, who pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (Supp....
Copy

In re: Joseph Rogers, Jr., 825 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2016).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11159, 2016 WL 3362057

...§ 784.045; (2) a conviction for aggravated assault, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 784.021; and (3) a conviction for conspiracy to 8 Case: 16-12626 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 9 of 9 distribute methamphetamine, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)....
Copy

Lewis v. State, 545 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 64522

...Gemmer, and Michele Taylor, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. ALTENBERND, Judge. The defendant appeals his convictions for purchase of cocaine and possession of the same cocaine. We affirm his judgment and sentence for purchase of cocaine and expressly declare that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), was validly enacted for the reasons stated in Blankenship v....
Copy

State v. Sylvio, 846 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21347195

...Hoffmann, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Iva Oza, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. POLEN, C.J. Joseph Sylvio pled guilty to possession of cocaine, a third degree felony. § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Day v. State, 119 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3853227, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11763

...valid prescription” would not concoct a scheme to conceal prescription pills from law enforcement by putting them down someone’s pants. The jury found Appellant guilty as charged with trafficking in hydrocodone. This appeal followed. Pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), it is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless the substance was “lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or...
Copy

Davis v. State, 67 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410, 2011 WL 2923699

...t criminal activity was afoot. On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate the judgment and sentence and grant the motion to suppress. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, CJ., and PALMER, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.147(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). [2] § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

JJN v. State, 877 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1486003

...pothesis of innocence." *809 Pagan, 830 So.2d at 803 (citation omitted). In order to convict an individual of the offense of possession of cannabis, the state must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive possession of the contraband. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Oliver v. State, 707 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 97267

...guing that the trial court erred in refusing to give his special jury instructions. We agree and reverse. In this case, the State charged Oliver with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of sections 893.13(6)(a) and 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...was aware of the illicit nature of the substance or object he possessed. [1] Oliver argues that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), is directly on point. In Chicone, the supreme court interpreted both section 893.13(6)(a) and section 893.147(1) as necessarily including a scienter requirement (i.e....
Copy

Hayes v. State, 677 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 5129

...ment. Section 775.084(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, provides that a defendant may be sentenced as an habitual offender provided "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." Since possession of crack cocaine is a violation of section 893.13, the habitual offender statute does not permit habitualization for appellant's conviction in circuit court case 94-1608....
...State, 657 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Jackson v. State, 651 So.2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Perez v. State, 647 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Even though sentencing is imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, an habitual offender sentence imposed for a violation of section 893.13 must be reversed....
Copy

Betz v. State, 793 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 52750

...Betz with possession of an aggregate amount of drugs, we remand for correction of the order of probation to reflect that Mr. Betz has been adjudicated guilty of possession of not more than twenty grams of cannabis, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), and for resentencing for the reduced charge....
Copy

Tessier v. State, 462 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 219

...Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. PER CURIAM. We reverse defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...If so, convictions for both offenses are not prohibited. The test is "[i]f each crime ... requires an element of proof that the other does not, then ... [t]hey are separate offenses." State v. Baker, 456 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1984). In this case, all elements of the simple possession offense under section 893.13 are contained within the elements of the introduction or possession of contraband offense under section 951.22. Section 951.22 proscribes the introduction or possession of contraband into a county detention facility and specifically includes "controlled substances" as being within the definition of contraband. Section 893.13 proscribes the unlawful possession of controlled substances. Thus, we conclude that these two offenses are not separate offenses. See Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under section 893.13 are vacated....
Copy

Barnes v. State, 864 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 61239

...used for pain relief. Hydrocodone is a controlled substance listed under Schedule II in section 893.03(2)(a)1.j., Florida Statutes (1999). Subject to exceptions not pertinent here, actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance violates section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999).
Copy

Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 WL 561407

...ction and copying by law enforcement officers, the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Hendley’s judgment and sentence. The State charged Mr. Hendley with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud under section 893.13(7)(a)(9), by passing a fraudulent prescription at Hedges Pharmacy in Sarasota....
Copy

State v. Holzbacher, 948 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 486607

...Barack of Lynda B. Barack, P.L., Tampa, for Appellee. WHATLEY, Judge. The State appeals the order granting Kurt Holzbacher's pretrial motion in limine to suppress his confession for the charge of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...At this point in the case, Holzbacher has not come forward with evidence that he had a valid prescription for the deca. See Gunn v. State, 336 So.2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (noting by way of example that under section 893.10, if a defendant relied upon having a valid prescription as a defense to a charge of violating section 893.13(1)(e) (now numbered section 893.13(6)(a)), the defendant and not the state would bear the burden of proof)....
Copy

Graddy v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20676, 2017 WL 600094

...in Opp’n, Doc. 36, at 4 (alteration in original) (original emphasis omitted and new emphasis added). The text of the statute has been accurately set forth earlier in the text of this Order. . Wal-Mart points out a possible “safe harbor” provision under section 893.13(9)(h), Florida Statutes, which permits a pharmacist to dispense medications to a law enforcement officer for medical or scientific purposes only, but Graddy does not argue that it applies here....
Copy

Baldwin v. State, 684 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 691707

...We conclude that the trial court correctly interpreted the habitual offender statute and that a habitual offender sentence was permissible in this case. Defendant-appellant Baldwin was convicted on count one of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...At sentencing, the trial court imposed a guidelines sentence on count one, and a habitual offender sentence on count two. The applicable version of the habitual offender statute prohibits a habitual offender adjudication when the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced is "a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance ...." § 775.084(1)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1993). [1] The parties agree that a habitual offender disposition was not possible on count one, because defendant's conviction was for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13....
...of small amounts of cocaine. He urges that under the circumstances, his tampering conviction amounts to an indirect conviction of cocaine possession. He asks this court to treat the count two conviction the same as if it had been a conviction under section 893.13 for possession of cocaine....
...In previous cases, this court has taken the position that this part of the habitual offender statute should be construed as written. The habitual offender statute precludes habitual offender adjudication if the offense at conviction (1) is for a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and (2) is for either purchase or possession of a controlled substance. Both conditions must be met. Compare Grene v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 1145, ___ So.2d ___ [1996 WL 252248] (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 1996) (habitual offender adjudication impermissible where defendant was convicted of violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, for possession with intent to sell cocaine) with Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (habitual offender adjudication permissible where defendant was convicted of violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, for sale [rather than purchase or possession] of cocaine). In the present case, defendant's conviction on count two is not under section 893.13, Florida Statutes, but instead is under the tampering statute, section 918.13, Florida Statutes. Since by its terms the habitual offender statute only excludes convictions under section 893.13 for purchase or possession of a controlled substance, it follows that the trial court correctly interpreted the statute *256 to allow habitual offender adjudication on the count two, the conviction for tampering with evidence....
...efendant for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment, as provided in this section, if it finds that: .... 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.......
Copy

Brown v. State, 610 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 385370

...*1357 Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Gypsy Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. MINER, Judge. Urging the unconstitutionality of section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...The statute increases the degree of the offense where the prohibited activity takes place within the specified areas. Thus, appellant's sale of cocaine is increased from a second to a first degree felony by virtue of his proximity to a public housing facility. See § 893.13(1)(i)1., Fla....
Copy

Redmond v. State, 970 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4547368

...*916 We do agree, however, that the trial court erred by placing Redmond on ten years drug offender probation for the offense of the delivery of cocaine. Section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005), authorizes drug offender probation for violations of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), which prohibit the purchase or possession of certain controlled substances....
Copy

McCoy v. State, 56 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19939, 2010 WL 5540946

...e physician. I. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Appellant first asserts the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing the State had not rebutted her affirmative defense. The “prescription defense” is codified in section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2008), and provides in pertinent part: (6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practi...
Copy

Chicone v. State, 658 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 669663

...Chicone relies upon State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1987) and Drain v. State, 601 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), however, these cases do not support Chicone's arguments. In Dominguez, the defendant was charged with trafficking in cocaine, a violation of section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes....
...ossessed by Chicone was known to him to be cocaine and that the object he possessed was known to him to be drug paraphernalia in order for there to be a conviction. The trial court denied these instructions and gave the standard jury instruction for section 893.13(1)(f) [3] and section 893.147(1) [4] along with the standard jury instructions on reasonable doubt, which the trial judge read twice....
...order, we quash the sentencing order and remand for resentencing and resolution of the discrepancies. Cleveland v. State, 617 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Conviction AFFIRMED; Sentencing REVERSED. HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
Copy

Daophin v. State, 511 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1877

...Notwithstanding, we are cognizant of possible tension between Butler and the Standard Instructions. Accordingly, and believing the outcome to be of great public *1038 importance, we certify the following question to our Supreme Court: MUST A JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON SIMPLE POSSESSION OF COCAINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHERE THE INFORMATION CHARGES TRAFFICKING BY DELIVERY [AND ONLY BY DELIVERY] IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN 400 GRAMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 893.135(1)(b)(3), FLORIDA STATUTES? All other points on appeal are affirmed....
...I concur that this is a reversal, but also agree that the subject question should be certified. The court first held, in DiPaola v. State, 461 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), that where the defendant has been charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), is a category 1 (one step removed) lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine under Section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...The opinion cited to Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), p. 274. Id. at 285. That page of the criminal jury instructions to which the court cited, reads as follows with respect to trafficking in cocaine and category 1: CHARGED OFFENSES CATEGORY 1 Trafficking in cocaine 893.135(1)(b) 893.13(1)(a) if sale, manufacture or delivery is charged Bringing cocaine into state 89.13(1)(d) Possession of cocaine 893.13(1)(e) The court then considered Butler v. State, 497 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which the defendant was charged with different offenses, including trafficking in cocaine in an amount greater than 28 but less than 200 grams, by delivery, contrary to sections 893.135(1)(b)(1) and 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...on simple possession as a lesser included offense to trafficking in cocaine. We conclude that it did. Id. at 1328. In this case the defendant's alleged offenses included trafficking in cocaine by delivery in excess of 400 grams, contrary to sections 893.135(1)(b)(3) and 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1985)....
Copy

Easley v. State, 755 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 565866

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Debra Rescigno, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. STEVENSON, J. Appellant, Adam Easley, was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a church or religious organization in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (1997)....
...We note, however, that churches and places of worship have not been singled out; rather, the legislature has determined that increased penalties should apply to drug sales committed in close proximity to child care facilities, schools, colleges, public parks, and convenience stores. See §§ 893.13(1)(d) & (e), Fla....
Copy

Knipp v. State, 67 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 WL 3300186

...The trial court granted in part and denied in part Knipp's and Kiser's motions to dismiss. As to the doctor shopping statute, the court determined that "there exists no requirement that an individual first be asked about previous prescriptions in order to have violated section 893.13(7)(a)(8), Fla....
...499.003(32), or prescription drug as defined in s. 499.003(42), unless the possession of the drug has been obtained by a valid prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe the drug. Id. (Emphasis added). The question then is whether section 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes (2008), also known as the "doctor shopping" statute, vitiates the valid prescription defense found in section 499.03. Section 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes (2008), also known as the "doctor shopping" statute, provides that it is unlawful for any person: *379 To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days. § 893.13(7)(a)8., Fla....
...The State's argument rested on the legal issue of whether a violation of the doctor shopping statute vitiates the "valid prescription" defense to trafficking or possession of a controlled substance. We reject this argument because nothing in either sections 499.03(2) or 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes, eliminates the valid prescription defense to trafficking or possession of a controlled substance if the prescription is obtained in violation of the doctor shopping statute....
...es on appeal and cross-appeal are identical. [2] See Definitions of withhold, ONELOOK DICTIONARY SEARCH, http://www.onelook.com/?w=withhold & ls=a (last visited July 19, 2011). [3] The Legislature may well want to consider amending section 499.03 or 893.13(7)(a)8....
Copy

State v. Liataud, 587 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 128329

...Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord with this court's opinion in State v. Baxter, 581 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1991). HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., specially concurring. ANSTEAD, Judge, specially concurring. At issue is whether the sentencing provisions of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), should apply or whether the provisions of section 397.12 authorized the trial court to place appellee in a treatment program instead of prison....
...Application of these principles to the present case would result in affirmance of the trial court's disposition. 3. Furthermore, this Court's decision in the present case fails to consider the legal effect of the omission from the mandatory minimum prison terms defined in Section 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1989), of the prohibition, found in Sections 893.135 [drug trafficking], 784.08(3) [crimes committed against the elderly], 775.087 [crimes committed with firearm], and 775.0823 [violent crimes against law enforcement officer], Fla. Stat. (1989), that the mandatory minimum sentence "shall not be suspended, deferred or withheld." In contrast with each of these statutes, Section 893.13(1)(e) is conspicuous by the fact that these words precluding the trial judge from staying, suspending, or withholding the mandatory sentence are absent....
...ion of sentence as to count(s) 1 and places the Defendant on probation for a period of 5 years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections... ." (R 34, emphasis added). The trial court therefore exercised the discretion permitted to it by Section 893.13(1)(3), withheld the mandatory minimum sentence, and directed that Appellee serve a term of probation, as a special condition of which he is to complete a drug rehabilitation program, as well as comply with other mandates intended to insure his rehabilitation (r 36). Since this procedure is not prohibited by Section 893.13(1)(e), the trial court committed no error in utilizing it, and its disposition of the instant case should be affirmed.
Copy

Hall v. State, 765 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1154044

...Appellant reached an agreement with the State for the revocation of his probation and a guideline sentence of 51.15 months in prison. The plea form provides for an adjudication of 51.15 months in prison, but does not mention a three-year minimum mandatory term for violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes (1997), sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school....
Copy

Stanley v. State, 507 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 964

...Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph N. D'Achille, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. COBB, Judge. Stanley was convicted of violating section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides that possession of cannabis in an amount over 20 grams and not over 100 pounds constitutes a third-degree felony. The trial judge entered a departure sentence based on quantity — the fact that Stanley possessed 99 pounds of cannabis. If the amount had exceeded 100 pounds, the offense would have been elevated to a first-degree felony. § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...egree felony category, the punishment range for that crime is much broader than the guidelines presumptive sentence. Indeed had Stanley possessed only one more pound of cannabis at the time of his arrest, he could have been convicted of trafficking, § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...5th DCA 1986); Bennett v. State, 495 So.2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Miller v. State, 492 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fletcher v. State, 491 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1986); Yost v. State, 489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). [1] § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1352478, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5553

...motion. Affirmed. VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . Beyond the challenge to the denial of the suppression motion, Dermio also argues on appeal that his adjudication and sentencing for the drug-related offenses were fundamentally erroneous because section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2009), is facially unconstitutional. However, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that section 893.13 is constitutional, State v....
Copy

Lewis v. State, 979 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 1805835

...he credibility of the officers' testimony, which the court itself questioned. The state charged Lewis with use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (2005), and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2005)....
Copy

State v. Thomas, 616 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 125117

...In these consolidated appeals, the state seeks review of orders of the judges of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit (en banc) and of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit declaring unconstitutionally vague that portion of section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat'l Resources, 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984); State v. McCarthy, 615 So.2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In affirming the trial judges in regard to the unconstitutional vagueness of the term "public housing facility" in section 893.13(1)(i), we recognize that we are in conflict *1199 with Brown v....
...*1200 Are the corporate offices of a "public housing facility" included? Are government offices that operate low income housing included? Are sewage, water and utility facilities included? In our opinion the possibilities for a misapplication of the term "public housing facility" are too numerous to allow that provision to section 893.13(1)(i) to withstand constitutional scrutiny....
Copy

Jordan v. State, 560 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 48655

...Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. ZEHMER, Judge. Tracy Jordan, a seventeen-year-old high school student, was charged as an adult with the felony offense of soliciting Loretta Regar to purchase cocaine in a school yard, in violation of sections 777.04(2) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). A jury found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced as an adult. Appealing, he contends that the lower court (1) erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that section 893.13 violates article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, and (2) erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence that he earnestly intended to solicit the purchase of cocaine....
...Jordan moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied, and then rested his case without presenting any evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Jordan first contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, was enacted in violation of the one-subject requirements set forth in article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution....
...ooling around, and the state's proof is wholly lacking that he actually possessed any crack cocaine that he could have sold to Loretta Regar. It is, of course, a criminal offense to sell or purchase crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a public school. § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

State v. Battle, 661 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 170716

...4th DCA 1974), affirmed, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1976). The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court was required to sentence based on section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) (see note following statute; section 22, ch....
...NOTES [1] We note that the trial court did not realize the limited nature of the statutory amendment. Although the legislature eliminated the minimum sentence for purchase near a school, it did not eliminate this sentence for sale or delivery during most hours of the day within 1000 feet of a school. See § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
Copy

Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 103805

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING COBB, Judge. Having considered appellant's motion for rehearing, we vacate our earlier decision and substitute this opinion. The appellant, Leonardi, first contends that the statute under which she was convicted — section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) — was unconstitutionally amended by Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida....
...We disagree for the reasons set forth in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987) and State v. Lee, 356 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1978), but join the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal [1] in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? We agree with the appellant's second contention that the trial court's probation order runs afoul of Dorfman v....
Copy

Daniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 502115

...e lien. We reverse. Section 775.084(1)(a)3 provides for enhanced sentences for those defendants qualifying as habitual offenders under the statute. However, the statute specifically excludes those defendants who are being sentenced for violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
...In approving an habitual offender sentence for the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, the supreme court in Hale was construing the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute. This earlier version of the statute did not contain the provision excluding violations of section 893.13 from consideration for enhanced habitual offender sanctions....
...State, 668 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we vacate the habitual offender adjudication and the public defender's lien and remand for reconsideration of these issues. VACATED and REMANDED. PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)1, Fla....
Copy

Blackiston v. State, 772 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1434128

...Selden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alfred Washington, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. THOMPSON, C.J. Darryl D. Blackiston pled no contest to the offense of purchasing cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(3)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1999)....
Copy

Marrero v. State, 741 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 765949

...The trial court properly denied the motion with respect to the sentence imposed in count one for unlawful sale or delivery of cocaine. See Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(habitual offender adjudication permissible where defendant was convicted of violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, for sale [rather than purchase or *635 possession] of cocaine)....
Copy

Hill v. State, 624 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 383535

...He received a sanction of five years in prison followed by five years' probation. His primary offense at sentencing — trafficking in methamphetamine — carried a mandatory minimum penalty of five years, which "shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld." § 893.135(1)(f)2., *827 Fla....
...approach contemplated by chapter 397. He relies principally upon the recent decision in Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1992), in which the supreme court announced that trial courts may depart from the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions of section 893.13(1)(e)(1)....
...'s sentencing discretion to possessory offenses has been overruled. We nonetheless reject Hill's argument that Scates has extended section 397.12's rehabilitation alternative to drug traffickers. In enlarging the reach of chapter 397 to violators of section 893.13(1)(e), the supreme court's significant remark is that "we fail to see any difference between possessing cocaine for personal use and purchasing a small amount of cocaine for personal use." Scates, 603 So.2d at 506. The personal acquisition and consumption of illegal drugs differs sharply, however, from the peddling of such drugs for profit. We cannot overlook the significance of one other consideration deriving from Scates. Although sections 893.13 and 893.135 both call for a minimum term of confinement, the provisions are susceptible to differing constructions: Two other sections in chapter 893 contain mandatory minimum sentences. Sections 893.135 [drug trafficking] and 893.20 [continuing criminal enterprise], Florida Statutes (1989), provide that the minimum sentences contained therein shall "not be suspended, deferred, or withheld." Also, sections 893.135 and 893.20 expressly refer to their sentences as "mandatory." There is no similar restriction in section 893.13(1)(e), and the word mandatory is not used. The omission of this language implies that the legislature intended a different construction, allowing trial judges greater discretion in sentencing decisions under section 893.13(1)(e). Scates, 603 So.2d at 505-06 (footnote omitted). The inclusion in section 893.135 of the proscription against suspending, deferring or withholding the mandatory penalty reflects a legislative intent to strengthen the punishment for large scale drug trafficking....
Copy

State v. Winbush, 121 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5288110, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14937

...The State appeals the drug offender probation sentence imposed by the trial court on Robert Winbush. Determining that Winbush was not eligible to receive drug offender probation, we reverse. Winbush pled nolo contendere to the crime of delivery of cannabis, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes (2011)....
...on sentence. The drug offender statute reads, in relevant part, as follows: *1166 948.20. Drug offender probation (1) If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), or other nonviolent felony if such nonviolent felony is committed on or after July 1, 2009, and notwithstanding s....
...rug offender probation statute, Winbush was ineligible to receive drug offender probation. Cf. McGrill v. State, 82 So.3d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that the defendant, who pled no contest to the charge of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a),⅛ fell within the express parameters of the drug offender probation statute and thus qualified to receive drug offender probation)....
Copy

State v. Moten, 698 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 564426

...nt to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and setting aside Moten's conviction and sentence. We reverse. Joseph L. Moten was charged with selling a controlled substance within 200 feet of a public park, a first degree felony in violation of section 893.13(1)(i)(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Mills v. State, 623 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 341116

...if so, set forth valid written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines. Weaver, 587 So.2d 654; State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989). JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
Copy

State v. RDH, 779 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1580386

...uency because the trial court failed to suspend R.D.H.'s driver's license, contrary to the requirements of section 322.056(1), Florida Statutes (1997). R.D.H. entered a no contest plea to the delinquent act of possession of marijuana, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and an enumerated offense under section 322.056(1)....
Copy

Graves v. State, 587 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 205832

...Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant's conviction for the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property. § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Joshua v. State, 205 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17716

...ting by designation as temporary judges of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. . This amount just met the threshold trafficking amount necessary to subject Joshua to a mandatory minimum sentence of seven -years and a mandatory fine of $100,000. See § 893.13(f)l.b., Fla....
...unt of twenty-eight grams or more). However, the State ultimately charged trafficking in an amount of more than fourteen but less than twenty-eight grams, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years and a mandatory fine of $50,000. See § 893.13(f)!.a....
Copy

Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 992734

...State, 714 So.2d 1152, 1152 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We reverse the habitual offender sentence for the possession of cocaine with intent to sell. Under section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), habitual offender sentencing does not apply to violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995), "relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance." Thus, a habitual offender sentence is not allowed for possession with intent to sell....
Copy

Richardson v. State, 969 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4145274

...f the other offense, and, (b) in fact, both offenses relate to the exact same factual event." See Miles, 418 So.2d at 1072 (Cowart, J., concurring specially) (footnotes omitted). While Richardson's two convictions for sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004), indisputably contain identical legal elements, the two convictions arise from two factually separate and distinct sales of cocaine, sales which may be punished separately without violating double jeopardy prohibitions....
Copy

Niyke Deangelo Echavarria v. State of Florida, 270 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...We affirm Niyke Deangelo Echavarria's judgment and sentences; we remand for correction of obvious scrivener's errors in the written sentences. Mr. Echavarria pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school with intent to sell and sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. See § 893.13(1)(c)(1), Fla....
Copy

Coleman v. State, 927 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1235917

...We affirm his convictions. However, we reverse his habitual felony offender sentences on the two counts of possession of cocaine. Section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2003), precludes sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

State v. Hatten, 560 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1990).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1990 WL 62033

...n setting aside dual convictions for sale and possession of a single quantity of drugs. In my opinion, Smith does not provide a basis for these later rulings. Possession of drugs is proscribed by more than one section of the Florida Statutes (1985). Section 893.13(1)(a) describes "possession with intent to sell"; section 893.13(1)(e), on the other hand, defines "simple possession," an entirely different offense and one not dealt with in Smith....
...The same analysis applies to Burton, where the offenses were delivery and simple possession. I would quash the DCA decision, order Hatten's conviction and sentence for possession reinstated, and distinguish Burton to the extent that it can be read as applying to simple possession under section 893.13(1)(e)....
Copy

Rangel v. State, 110 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 845202, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3755

WALLACE, Judge. A jury found Matthew Lee Rangel guilty of possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), and sale of cocaine within a thousand feet of a place of worship, a violation of section 893.13(l)(e)(l)....
Copy

G.G. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5003, 2012 WL 1059042

...For this reason, the evidence was insufficient to prove that G.G. committed the possession offenses, and his delinquency adjudication must be reversed with directions to dismiss the petition. Reversed and remanded with directions. ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . We recognize that the question of whether section 893.13 is unconstitutional because it does not require the State to prove the defendant's knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband is pending before the Florida Supreme Court in State v....
Copy

Blanco v. State, 89 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1020016, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4773

...Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the political discussion contained in the taped telephone conversation. Finally, we summarily reject the issues raised in Blanco’s supplemental brief. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002) is constitutional); Comparato v....
Copy

Frasilus v. State, 840 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1386668

...defendant not drive. [7] But that did not occur in this case, nor was it orally pronounced. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; Special Condition of Probation STRICKEN. SAWAYA, J., concurs. THOMPSON, CJ., concurs specially in result only. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
Copy

State v. S.S., 8 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2283

...The State argues that the trial court erred in failing to impose a mandatory six-month driver’s license suspension on S.S., a juvenile. We agree and reverse. S.S. pleaded no contest in several cases, including one involving possession of marijuana. See § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...The trial court refused to do so, implying that the sanction was not required when adjudication was withheld. Section 322.056(1) mandates suspension when a no contest plea is entered, adjudication is withheld, and the underlying offense is one enumerated under the statute — as is section 893.13....
Copy

Mantilla v. State, 38 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8165, 2010 WL 2292107

...In keeping with these instructions, as to Count I, the trafficking charge, the verdict form asked the jury to determine not just whether Mantilla possessed more than 25 pounds of cannabis with the intent to sell it as required for a conviction under section 893.135(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), but also whether he possessed between 20 grams and 25 pounds or less than 20 grams as lesser included offenses....
...NOTES [1] A key that opened that door was, however, located in a dresser drawer in the master bedroom of the house during a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant. [2] These are not lesser included offenses of a trafficking in cannabis charge but the separate crime of simple possession. See § 893.135(1)(a), § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...uilty on this count and raises no claims regarding the verdict on this charge. [4] The defendant in Gibbs was convicted of trafficking possession of cocaine, that is possession of more than 28 grams but less than 400 grams of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes and for simple possession of the same controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). But for the illegal substance involved, the crimes charged here are the same as those charged in Gibbs. See § 893.135(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) (defining trafficking in cannabis and making it a felony of the first degree to possess more than 25 pounds of cannabis); § 893.135(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009) (defining trafficking in cocaine and making it a felony of the first degree to possess 28 or more grams of cocaine); § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Richards v. State, 37 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8184, 2010 WL 2292116

...The central question presented for review is whether the State failed to present *926 a prima facie case of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The appellant, David Richards, was found guilty of and sentenced to ten years in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes....
...to contain cocaine, and that the total weight of the material in the tested packets equal or exceed twenty-eight (28) grams."). To the contrary, the amount of cocaine actually possessed is not an element of the charged offense in the instant case. See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...Inside the purse seized by police were 7 bags each containing a white powdery substance outwardly resembling many distinctly different substances—some banned by law, some not. The alleged crime is possession for sale of a controlled substance [1] in violation of § 893.13(1)(a)1, defining the contraband as a "controlled substance named or described in ......
...§ 893.03[]." The Information alleged he intended to sell the substance named or described in § 893.03(2)(a)4 as "cocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of cocaine or ecgonine." See § 893.13(1)(a)1 and § 893.03(2)(a)4....
...ine. They require the State to prove the chemical substance stated in the Information. Hence the State had the burden of proving that the substance in the 7 bags was composed of the actual chemical elements, compound or mixture named or described in § 893.13(1)(a)1 as "cocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of cocaine or ecgonine." Although § 893.13(1)(a)1 does not specify any particular quantity by weight or packaging, it does specify as an essential element of the crime a specific intent to sell the substance with the chemical composition named or described in the statute....
Copy

Jones v. State, 881 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1254003

...Contrary to Jones's contention, he was correctly sentenced under section *585 775.084(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that habitual felony offender status requires, among other things, that one of the two prior felony convictions[ ] is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.... Jones's habitual offender status was predicated on four prior felony convictions, three of which were violations of section 893.13, while the fourth was a drug trafficking offense. As the drug trafficking conviction falls under section 893.135, not section 893.13, Jones's sentence as a habitual offender meets the requirement that at least one prior felony conviction not be a violation of section 893.13....
Copy

Benjamin Deriso v. State, 221 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2491602, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8530

...As we outline below, Deriso is correct. Therefore, we grant his petition. On August 25, 2015, the State filed an information charging Deriso with one count of acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge in violation of section 893.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2014)....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 37 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8982, 2010 WL 2484351

...Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. CLARK, J. The appellant was convicted of sale or delivery of cocaine, as proscribed by section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes....
Copy

State v. EDR, 959 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1789299

...lap. The officers had probable cause to arrest him and seize the evidence. We reverse the trial court's order granting E.D.R.'s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Hills v. State, 90 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2345112, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9994

CLARK, J. Kimberly Hills challenges her convictions under section 893.13, Florida Statutes and the costs for the state attorney imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010). We affirm the convictions and reject Hills’ challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.13....
Copy

Levy v. State, 36 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8718, 2010 WL 2468093

WHATLEY, Judge. Antonio Levy challenges his sentence of eighteen months for the first-degree misdemeanor of possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. 1 See § 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2008). The State concurs that because a first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to only one year in jail, § 775.082(4)(a), Levy must be resentenced. After a jury found Levy guilty of the third-degree felony of delivery of cannabis, § 893.13(l)(a)(2), and the first-degree misdemeanor of possession of cannabis, the trial court orally pronounced that it would sentence Levy to eighteen months in prison....
Copy

Crites v. State, 959 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1944492

...Judgment and Sentence on Count II is STRICKEN; otherwise AFFIRMED. SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See U.S. Const. amend. V.; Fla. Const. art. 1, § 9. [2] No party has appealed the issue of whether the State could properly so stipulate. [3] See § 893.13(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2005). [4] See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Willis v. State, 736 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 445710

...We affirm the trial court's denial of Willis' motion for mistrial without comment. However, we reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing. We address each of the sentencing issues in turn. We note that possession of cocaine is a third-degree felony carrying a maximum statutory sentence of sixty months (five years). See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Canty v. State, 471 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1627

...However, we feel it necessary to discuss Canty's alternative point under which he challenged the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction. Relevant to that latter issue is the fact that Canty was charged by information with the unlawful sale, delivery, or possession of cannabis, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, a third degree felony....
...Seizing on those omissions, Canty argues that an information which charges the delivery of cannabis, without specifying the amount of cannabis delivered or alleging that it was for consideration, charges the misdemeanor offense of possession or delivery without consideration of not more than twenty grams of cannabis. Section 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
...lleged only a misdemeanor as "mere surplusage." 455 So.2d at 629. The State, obviously relying on Fike, also argues that the allegations in the information were made specific by the inclusion of the precise statutory section allegedly violated, viz, section 893.13(1)(a)2, which is a felony....
...ough the alleged sale of the cannabis, or a misdemeanor through the alleged possession or delivery of an unspecified amount of cannabis. However, unlike the circumstances in Rogers and Fike, here the information specifically alleged the violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2, a felony....
Copy

State v. Sanchez, 133 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 51696, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 155

LEVINE, J. The state appeals the order dismissing charges related to drug trafficking against appellee. The trial court found that because appellee was a licensed medical assistant and nurse practitioner, her alleged crimes would fall under section 893.13(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), and not under section 893.135(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), as charged....
...As to the trafficking and conspiracy to traffic charges, the state alleged that appellee knowingly sold or delivered to a person “by means of a prescription written in bad faith and not in the course of professional practice,” various controlled substances, contrary to sections 893.135(l)(c) and 893.05. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss arguing that because she was a licensed medical assistant and nurse practitioner, her alleged crimes would fall under section 893.13(8)(a. The state argued that appellee was not a prac *1040 titioner pursuant to the relevant statutory authority, and as such, should not be charged under section 893.13(8)(a)....
...We review de novo a trial court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a criminal information. State v. Wright, 65 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We also review de novo a trial court’s interpretation of a statute. State v. Gonzalez, 121 So.3d 625, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Appellee was charged under sections 893.135(l)(c) and 893.05. Section 893.135(l)(c) provides: (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s.893.13: [[Image here]] (c) 1....
...A veterinarian may so prescribe, administer, dispense, mix, or prepare a controlled substance for use on animals only, and may cause it to be administered by an assistant or orderly under the veterinarian’s direction and supervision only. The trial court determined that appellee should have been charged under section 893.13(8)....
...d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), if a prescribing practitioner has violated paragraph (a) and received $1,000 or more in payment for writing one or more prescriptions or, in the case of a prescription written for a controlled substance described in s. 893.135, has written one or more prescriptions for a quantity of a controlled substance which, individually or in the aggregate, meets the threshold for the offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under s. 893.1[3]5, the violation is reclassified as a felony of the second degree .... The trial court determined that appellee should have been charged under section 893.13(8), instead of section 893.135(l)(c), because the trial court concluded that ap-pellee was a practitioner....
...Even assuming, arguendo, that appellant was a practitioner, State v. Gonzalez, 121 So.3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), would not change the result of this case because it held that a practitioner may be charged under either section 898.135(l)(e), the statute under which appellant was charged, or section 893.13(8), the statute under which appellant claims she should have been charged....
Copy

Jenkins v. State, 1 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 348, 2009 WL 127873

...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Lunar Claire Alvey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before RAMIREZ, SHEPHERD, and SALTER, JJ. SHEPHERD, J. Engino Jenkins appeals a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes (2006)....
...at distance of forty-five to fifty feet. Officer Robinson could not identify the substance; he could say only the transaction he saw was consistent with "thousands" of similarly illegal "hand-to-hand transactions" he had seen throughout his career. Section 893.13(1)(c) provides in pertinent part: [I]t is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising *319 a child care facility ......
Copy

Murray v. State, 464 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 553

...Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. LEHAN, Judge. We reverse defendant's convictions and sentences for possession of heroin and possession of cocaine, violations of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983). His convictions and sentences for possession with intent to sell heroin and for possession with intent to sell cocaine, violations of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), are affirmed....
...We agree also with defendant's contention that the convictions for possession with intent to sell cocaine and for simple possession of cocaine are impermissible for the same reason. Defendant contends that all of the elements of simple possession under section 893.13(1)(e) are contained within the crime of possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a). The state, on the other hand, argues that the elements of section 893.13(1)(a) do not necessarily include the elements of section 893.13(1)(e). Section 893.13(1)(a) makes it unlawful "to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the state argues, the element of possession which is necessary for a violation of section 893.13(1)(e) is not necessary for a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)....
...n one is not an included offense of the other. They are separate offenses. We disagree with the state's argument because, pursuant to the Baker test for determining when separate crimes exist from a single event, the crime of simple possession under section 893.13(1)(e), does not contain an element not in the other crime involved here. That is, all of the elements of the crime of possession under section 893.13(1)(e) are contained in the offense of possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a). We recognize, as the state argues, that another portion of section 893.13(1)(a) defines the offense of sale of a controlled substance which does not necessarily require the element of possession. However, we treat section 893.13(1)(a) as defining possession with intent to sell, one of the crimes involved here, as a crime separate and apart from the remaining portions of section 893.13(1)(a) concerning manufacture, sale or delivery. See Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (en banc). Accordingly, our application of the Baker test is only relative to the crimes of simple possession under section 893.13(1)(e) and possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a)....
...That statement seems to have been an apparent acknowledgement that the cocaine and heroin were the same controlled substances involved in both the possession and possession with intent to sell crimes. In light of the above, we reverse the two convictions under section 893.13(1)(e), i.e., possession of heroin and possession of cocaine, the lesser degree offenses of the four convictions....
Copy

Marshall v. State, 381 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. UPCHURCH, Judge. The Appellant was convicted by a jury under an information which charged that: Debbie Lynn Marshall, on the 29th day of March, 1977, in said County and State, did in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a), unlawfully, deliver CANNABIS, commonly known as Hashish, a substance controlled by Florida Statute 893.03(1)(c)....
...Pope also held that in order to charge a felony under section 404.15(1), Florida Statutes, it was necessary to allege facts making the "exception" inapplicable: that the offense of delivery or possession was not a first offense, or that more than the five grams of cannabis was involved. Section 404.15(1) is now found in section 893.13(1)(f), but with the following additional sentence: For the purposes of this section, "cannabis" shall not include the resin extracted from the plant Cannabis sativa, L, or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin....
...We do not find Patterson, Stewart, or Pope controlling because the substance involved was marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and not hashish as in the case now before us. The case, Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), recognized that hashish is extracted resin of cannabis. The added sentence in section 893.13(1)(f) quoted above, takes hashish out of the misdemeanor category established by the first sentence of that section. The misdemeanor exception is applicable only to Cannabis sativa, L, commonly known as marijuana, and not to cannabis commonly known as hashish. Section 893.13(1)(a)(2) establishes that the unlawful delivery of any amount of cannabis, commonly known as hashish, is a felony of the third degree because of its *278 inclusion in section 893.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Celeste v. State, 79 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 511303, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2451

...The trafficking statute provides, in relevant part: (c) 1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of . . . oxycodone . . . commits a felony of the first degree. . . . § 893.135(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2009). The plain language of the statute requires the State to prove that an accused knowingly sold, [2] purchased, delivered, [3] brought into Florida or possessed four or more grams of one of the specified controlled substances. However, section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance when the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription....
Copy

FJR v. State, 922 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 358122

...defendant to return to his vehicle. Therefore, Deputy Williams was not justified in detaining the defendant and the defendant's suppression motion should have been granted. Judgment and Sentence REVERSED. THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. McKendry, 614 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 36289

...However, both opinions were quashed by the supreme court in Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1992) and Lane v. State, 603 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1992). In both cases, the supreme court held that the trial court could depart from the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions of section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1989), pursuant to the discretionary provisions of section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...If referred by the court, the referral may be in lieu of or in addition to final adjudication, imposition of any penalty or sentence, or any other similar action. The supreme court held that there was no conflict between the sentencing provisions of section 893.13(1) and section 397.12 since the provisions of section 397.12 specifically and unambiguously referred to chapter 893 in authorizing alternative sentences....
Copy

Ozell v. State, 837 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 289268

...Neither side had an objection to the just-quoted instruction. The defendant was convicted as charged. He has appealed. The defendant begins with the assumption that in this case, the trial court used the standard jury instruction entitled "Contraband in Specified Locations F.S. 893.13(1)(c)(d) and (e)." Under that particular instruction, the instruction should have contained a fourth element: "4....
...(Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance." West's Florida Criminal Laws and Rules 2001, at 1456-57. It turns out, however, that in West's Florida Criminal Law and Rules 2001, there is a second standard jury instruction dealing with the same subject. It is entitled "Drug Abuse—Possession on or Near School F.S. 893.13(1)(e)." Id....
...Affirmed. NOTES [*] We urge the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases to review the quoted jury instructions with a view to clarifying whether the instruction entitled "Drug Abuse—Possession on or Near School F.S. 893.13(1)(e)" should have been deleted at the time the new standard jury instruction was approved in 2000....
Copy

Porterfield v. State, 553 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 109514

...On Rehearing December 4, 1989. Carl S. McGinnes, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Porterfield's convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine in violation of § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985) and sale of the same cocaine in violation of § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...two other district courts of appeal. We grant rehearing, certify conflict and certify the question of whether on the authority of Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1983), a person may be convicted and sentenced for the possession of cocaine under § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985), and the sale of the same cocaine under § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...Because of the conflict between this decision and the decisions of the Second and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question: Under the provisions of § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat., may a person be convicted and sentenced for possession of cocaine in violation of § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985) and sale of the same cocaine in violation of § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Halfacre v. State, 24 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20566, 2009 WL 5150262

...enses committed after the date of the offense in this case. On remand, the trial court must resentence Halfacre using a corrected scoresheet. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(7)(a)9....
Copy

McLeod v. State, 52 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20130, 2010 WL 5391473

...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See §§ 775.087(1), 775.087(2)(a)(2), 775.087(2)(a)(3), 777.04, 782.04, Fla. Stat. (2007). [2] See §§ 775.087(2) & 784.045(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). [3] See § 790.19, Fla. Stat. (2007). [4] See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 786475

...Cory Ellis appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, contending that his enhanced habitual felony offender sentence was improperly imposed following his convictions on charges of possession with intent to sell marijuana and cocaine, § 893.13, Fla....
...We agree with Ellis and reverse and remand with directions that the habitual felony offender sentence imposed be vacated and that Ellis be resentenced. The habitual felony offender sentencing statute specifically exempts from its application criminal defendants who are convicted of "a violation of s.893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." See § 775.084(1)(a)3, Fla....
...his arrest (which the court believed showed it was not possessed for Ellis' personal use). This distinction cannot be approved however, because Ellis, as in Grene, was charged with and convicted only of a possession with intent to sell violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, not with the actual sale of the controlled substances, see, e.g....
...sessed or the defendant's subjective intent regarding personal use. Further, despite the numerous *1187 opinions from this and other District Courts of Appeal decided in 1995 and 1996 holding that convictions for possession with intent to sell under section 893.13 cannot receive habitual felony offender sentencing treatment, [1] the Florida Legislature met in 1997 and specifically reenacted section 775.084 without making any changes to subsection (1)(a)3....
...even if they might wish to decide the case differently. Wood, 677 So.2d at 19. Unless and until section 775.084(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes is changed, a criminal defendant convicted only of a violation of either the purchase or possession portions of section 893.13, Florida Statutes may not receive an enhanced sentence under the habitual felony offender statute....
Copy

State v. Latona, 75 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19203, 2011 WL 6003398

...had ever informed Latona that, notwithstanding the language contained in the executed power of attorney, she was not authorized to possess his medications. Furthermore, there was no allegation by the State that Latona had either used or attempted to sell H.H.'s medications. Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription....
Copy

State v. Houghtailing, 704 So. 2d 163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Cited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13962, 1997 WL 761982

...In this case, the crimes are different, but the logic of Smith and McCloud is controlling. The defendant purchased one rock of cocaine and drove off with it in his car. When stopped later by the police, he was still in possession of the same rock. Section 893.13(2)(a)l and 893.13(6)(a) make possession of a controlled substance, and its purchase separate crimes. Those sections provide: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to purchase, or possess with intent to purchase, a controlled substance.... § 893.13(2)(a). * * * * * * It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription. ... § 893.13(6)(a)....
...order, see Woodland v. Lindsey, 586 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), as we are certain the trial judge will competently carry out his judicial duties. AFFIRMED in part; REMAND for further proceedings. GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . § 893.13(2)(a), Fla....
Copy

Powell v. State, 717 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 453852

...inuance of the trial, and to frustrate witnesses who had been subpoenaed for trial. Under these *1053 circumstances, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion. AFFIRMED. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Appeal No. 97-1285. [2] 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. [3] § 893.147(1), Fla. Stat. [4] Appeal No. 97-1286. [5] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Ross, 792 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 991739

...aphic computer photo images. At the hearing, the State argued that the images were contraband and thus could not be lawfully possessed by Ross, nor lawfully disseminated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The State noted that while section 893.13(8) of the Florida Statutes (1999) provides a statutory exception for the delivery of controlled substances for the purpose of research and testing, no similar exception exists for the possession of child pornography....
Copy

Williams v. State, 908 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2006867

...that appellant intended to receive delivery of or purchase the drugs. Cf. Sobrino v. State, 471 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (stating, "Just as a buyer does not aid and abet a seller, so a receiver does not aid and abet a deliverer"); compare § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) (stating that "it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance") with § 893.13(2)(a), Fla....
Copy

Bennett v. State, 823 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1899917

...mistrial made after the prosecutor erroneously argued in closing that the jury could convict appellant of a lesser but uncharged crime. We agree and reverse. Appellant was charged with possession with intent to sell cocaine, a second degree felony. § 893.13(1)(a)1., Fla....
Copy

Ramos v. State, 529 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 82677

...te double jeopardy as do the concomitant convictions of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and the offenses of possession and delivery. We agree only with the first aspect of Ramos' argument finding that possession and delivery of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), which, as here, stem from a single act, are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes and punishable but once. This court's recent decision in Gordon v. State, 528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), held that the offenses of possession and sale also established under section 893.13(1)(a), involving the same quantity of cocaine, resulted in twice punishing the defendant for the same offense contrary to the protection against double jeopardy....
...establish the same or separate offenses if such intent could be discerned from a review of the applicable statute or statutes and any accompanying legislative history or documentation. The conspiracy to traffic statute under which Ramos was charged, section 893.135(5), Florida Statutes (1985), states: Any person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person to commit any act prohibited by subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the first degree and is punishable as if he had actually committed such prohibited act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit separate convictions and sentences for a violation of this subsection and any violation of subsection (1). § 893.135(5), Fla. Stat. (1985) (emphasis supplied). Trafficking in cocaine is defined under section 893.135(1)(b) as follows: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine as described in § 893.03(2)(a)4 or of any mixture containing cocaine is guilty of a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine". § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...Accordingly, we affirm the conspiracy conviction and remand the case to the trial court to vacate either the possession or delivery conviction and sentence in a manner consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. NOTES [1] Gordon involved section 893.13(1)(a) which provides in part: Except as authorized by this and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchases, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
Copy

State v. Langdon, 978 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 942045

...The trial court relied on section 948.034, Florida Statutes, in sentencing Langdon to drug offender probation in a downward deviation from the guidelines for which she was not eligible. In case 06-15090, Langdon pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006). In case 04-19230, in which the trial court revoked Langdon's probation, the underlying offense was possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (stating that, "[w]here possible, courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another"). Reading section 948.034 together with the relevant portions of sections 921.187 [1] and 893.13 [2] — both of which reference section 948.034 — it follows that a defendant who has a felony conviction of a non -drug related offense is not eligible to receive an alternate sentence under section 948.034....
..., a third-degree felony. Chapter 893 is entitled "Drug Abuse Prevention and Control," and section *265 948.034 is an alternative to the sentencing guidelines concerning certain chapter 893 drug-related offenses. Jones, 813 So.2d at 25 n. 2. Sections 893.13, 921.187, and 948.034 are not mutually exclusive, and when read together, clearly are part of a legislative package preventing a defendant in Langdon's position, having prior convictions not allowed under section 893.13, from benefiting from a downward departure. The record reflects that the trial court was concerned that section 948.034 did not reference the other two statutes, sections 921.187 and 893.13....
...posed any sentence it could have originally imposed. [3] The trial court, thus, erred in sentencing Langdon to drug offender probation under section 948.034(2), where Langdon had five previous convictions for possession of cocaine. For violations of section 893.13(6)(a) (possession of cocaine), the legislature provided in section 948.034(2) that offenders with up to four previous convictions are eligible for drug offender probation....
...STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 921.187, Florida Statutes, states in relevant part: (b)1. Notwithstanding any provision of former s. 921.001 or s. 921.002 to the contrary, on or after October 1, 1993, the court may require any defendant who violates s. 893.13(1)(a)1., . . . and meets the criteria described in s. 893.13(1), to successfully complete a term of probation pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in s. 948.034(1), in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment. 2. Notwithstanding any provision of former s. 921.001 or s. 921.002 to the contrary, on or after October 1, 1993, the court may require any defendant who violates s. 893.13 . . . (6)(a), and meets the criteria described in s. 893.13(11), to successfully complete a term of probation pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in s. 948.034(2), in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment. [emphasis added] [2] Sections 893.13(10) and (11), which are referred in the above statute, provide: (10) Notwithstanding any provision of the sentencing guidelines or the Criminal Punishment Code to the contrary, on or after October 1, 1993, any defendant who: (a) Violates subparagraph (1)(a)1....
Copy

Kelly v. State, 924 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...and had to run concurrently. He claims that he would not have entered his plea if he had known that the mandatory minimum sentences could not be stacked. The trial court summarily denied his motion. Kelly was sentenced pursuant to the provisions of section 893.135, Florida Statutes. That section provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: .......
...nment of 15 calendar years and pay a fine of $250,000. Thus, the statute defining the crime and setting forth the penalty contains the mandatory minimum penalty. Further, the statute specifically provides that a conspiracy to commit an offense under section 893.135(5) shall be treated and sentenced similarly: (5) Any person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person to commit any act prohibited by subsection (1) commits a felony of the first degree and is punishable as if he or she had actually committed such prohibited act....
...Although the court did not mention under which drug statute Hale was charged, the court noted that the amount was "a small quantity of cocaine." Id. at 522. It noted that the statute did not contain a mandatory minimum sentence. We can therefore conclude that he was charged and sentenced for a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, rather than under section 893.135....
...nder which Hale was sentenced did not include mandatory minimum provisions. Under the Daniels/Hale analysis, in this case the court could impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for both conspiracy and trafficking of the same cocaine, because section 893.135 specifically requires a mandatory minimum sentence for each separate crime....
Copy

Royal v. State, 784 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 359626

...Appellant, Mark Royal ["Royal"], appeals a final judgment after pleading no contest to the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a convenience business, and possession with intent to sell. Royal reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. Royal challenges section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), as being unconstitutionally void for vagueness in its creation of a 1,000 foot drug-free zone around convenience businesses....
...The point of departure for his argument is that the legislature chose not to use the commonly understood term, "convenience store", instead choosing the term "convenience business," and has defined that term only by reference to another statute, section 812.171, Florida Statutes (1999). Section 893.13(1)(e) provides: *1211 Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, o...
...(3) A business that has at least 10,000 square feet of retail floor space. The term `convenience business' does not include any business in which the owner or members of his or her family work between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. For the legislature to define the term in Section 893.13(1)(e) by reference to section 812.171 was, on its face, a very odd thing to do. Section 893.13(1)(e), which is designed to eliminate certain criminal conduct in proximity to such a business, is manifestly different from that of The Convenience Business Security Act, which is designed to require specific security measures and training programs....
...It would be helpful if our legislature would try to draft statutes less obliquely, but the problem in this case is one of construction, not constitutionality. Even if strict construction of criminal statutes were to require incorporation of the four exceptions in interpreting section 893.13(1)(e), these exceptions are matters of affirmative defense....
...Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). AFFIRMED. SAWAYA, J., concurs. SHARP, W., J., dissents, with opinion. SHARP, W., J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The outcome of this case should parallel Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla.1994). Section 893.13(1)(e), which creates a drug-free zone within a thousand feet of a "convenience business," by imposing enhanced penalties on those who sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, or possess controlled substances within the zone, fails to give adequate notice as to what conduct is prohibited....
...In Brown, a different part of the same statute involved in this case was held unconstitutionally vague. The statute in Brown created a drug-free zone, by imposing enhanced penalties for drug offenses committed within 200 feet of a "public housing facility". § 893.13(1)(i), Fla....
Copy

Norton v. State, 173 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13201, 2015 WL 5165228

...We order the circuit court to discharge Ms. Norton in Pasco County Circuit Court case number CRC10- 04873CFAWS-04. The State filed a one-count information charging Ms. Norton with violating the "doctor-shopping" statute, which is a third-degree felony. See § 893.13(7)(a)(8), (c), Fla....
...hearing on the motion to dismiss. Detective Connolly had no personal knowledge of efforts to locate Ms. Norton and serve her with the capias. Instead, he testified without objection to records that are kept in a 1 Section 893.13(7)(a)(8) makes it unlawful for any person [t]o withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance...
Copy

State v. McGee, 494 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1924

...ossession of cannabis with intent to sell but did not specify an amount of twenty grams or more, thus was only a misdemeanor. We reverse. The trial court relied on Franklin v. State, 346 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which blended together sections 893.13(1)(a), 893.03(1)(c), and 893.13(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes (1975), to determine that one who possesses cannabis with intent to sell less than the threshold amount [in 1977, five grams, now twenty grams] is guilty only of a first degree misdemeanor, not a felony....
...his court cannot simply ignore the words "intent to sell." To do so would unjustifiably abridge the statutes *256 and usurp the power of the legislature to define what is or is not a crime. The mere possession of a "controlled substance" is a crime. § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). Cannabis is a controlled substance. § 893.03(1)(c)3, Fla. Stat. (1985). One who possesses 20 grams or more is guilty of a third degree felony. § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). Possession of "not more than 20 grams" is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.13(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1985). On the other hand, possession with intent to sell cannabis is a third degree felony. §§ 893.13(1)(a); 893.03(1)(c)3, and 893.13(1)(a)2 Fla....
...The legislature has determined that it does not matter what amount one possesses with intent to sell in order for the act to be deemed a felony. Clearly, this is the province of the legislature to decide and should not be trifled with by the courts of this state. We hold that it is a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes to "possess with intent to sell" any amount of cannabis, and such a violation is a third degree felony....
Copy

McCormick v. State, 826 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31094751

...In all other respects, we affirm McCormick's convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND CONFLICT CERTIFIED. SHARP, W. and HARRIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 322.341, Fla. Stat. (2001). [2] § 322.34(5), Fla. Stat. (2001). [3] § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (2001). [4] § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4276329

...The State filed an information in circuit court that charged Mr. Hicks with one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, a second-degree felony, sections 784.021, .07(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), and possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana, a first-degree misdemeanor, section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)....
Copy

Melton v. State, 73 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14653, 2011 WL 4104996

...Appellant, Garnett Melton, argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that his convictions and sentences for the sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver methamphetamine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, (Count 1) and trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes, (Count 2) violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy....
...We do, however, agree that Appellant could not be convicted on Counts 1 and 2 when the underlying conduct, i.e., possession, was the same for both offenses. See Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206, 1210 (Fla.1997) (“[I]f prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes [sections 893.13 and 893.135], a conviction under more than one of the statutes is a violation of double jeopardy principles.”); Williamson v....
...ng and noting that “[w]here, as here, the trafficking, offense is based on possession, the conduct element is the same for both trafficking and possession”). We reject the State’s argument that the language “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13” found in section 893.135 requires a different result....
Copy

Mullins v. State, 74 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17225, 2011 WL 5126172

...possession); Melton v. State, 73 So.3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ("We do however, agree that Appellant could not be convicted o[f] [sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver methamphetamine in violation of section 893.13] and [trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135] when the underlying conduct, i.e., possession, was the same for both offenses.")....
Copy

Desire v. State, 829 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31422713

...m Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. MAY, J. The defendant appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), and introduction or possession of contraband on the grounds of a county detention facility, in violation of section 951.22, Florida Statutes (2001)....
Copy

State v. Crews, 884 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2387080

...o delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Mr. Crews to 18 months' imprisonment for the former charge to be followed by 18 months' probation for the latter charge. Because we conclude that section 893.13(1)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (2002), required the court to impose a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years for the crime of delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and because there is no applicable statutory authority for the court to suspend or defer that sentence, we reverse. Mr. Crews committed these offenses on October 3, 2002. The Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet called for a lowest permissible sentence of 28.2 months' imprisonment. At sentencing, Mr. Crews acknowledged that section 893.13(1)(c)(1) provides that a person who commits the crime of delivering cocaine within 1000 feet of a school "must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years." However, Mr....
...The court imposed a consecutive sentence of 18 months' probation for the possession of cocaine offense. The trial judge recognized that the sentences constituted a downward departure from the sentence required by the scoresheet and stated, "The only reason I can give it is the drug addiction." The plain language of section 893.13(1)(c)(1) requires a trial court to impose a sentence of a "minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years" when a defendant has delivered cocaine within 1000 feet of a school....
...Crews has advanced three arguments in support of his position that all or a portion of this sentence may be suspended or deferred in favor of a term of probation. First, section 948.034(1), (2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that "[o]n or after October 1, 1993," a person who violates specific subsections of section 893.13 "may, in the discretion of the trial court, be required to successfully complete a term of probation in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment as required or authorized by s. 775.084, former s. 921.001, or s. 921.002, as follows." (Emphasis added.) Although section 948.034 refers to section 893.13(1)(c)(2), it does not refer or apply to section 893.13(1)(c)(1). Thus section 948.034 did not permit the trial court to impose probation "in lieu of" the 3-year sentence required by section 893.13(1)(c)(1)....
...In Scates, the supreme court held that section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989), permitted a trial judge to refer a defendant convicted of purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school to a drug-abuse treatment program rather than impose the 3-year sentence required by section 893.13(1)(e)(1)....
...[1] This court has refused to apply Scates to a case in which the defendant was convicted of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. State v. Randall, 627 So.2d 571, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (stating, "[a] trial judge has no discretion to depart from the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions of section 893.13(1)(e)(1) when the statutory violation involves sale of drugs")....
...Instead, section 397.705(1) now requires "the referral shall be in addition to final adjudication, imposition of penalty or sentence, or other action." (Emphasis added.) Thus neither Scates nor the current statutes on substance abuse services permit the trial court to avoid the 3-year term of imprisonment required by section 893.13(1)(c)(1). See also State v. Bazil, 703 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). [2] Finally, Mr. Crews argues that section 948.01, Florida Statutes (2002), authorized the trial court to withhold the imposition of the minimum sentence called for by section 893.13(1)(c)(1) and to impose probation....
...he sentencing scoresheet calls for a minimum term of imprisonment. See, e.g., State v. Scott, 879 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also State v. VanBebber, 848 So.2d 1046 (Fla.2003); State v. Brannum, 876 So.2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In this case, section 893.13(1)(c)(1)'s provision requiring a 3-year term of imprisonment was enacted after section 948.01 was amended to authorize a court to withhold sentence and impose probation in certain cases. See ch. 85-288, § 14 at 1813, Laws of Fla. (amending § 948.01, effective July 1, 1985); ch. 89-524, § 1, at 2651, Laws of Fla. (amending § 893.13, effective June 27, 1989). Section 893.13(1)(c)(1) is the more specific statute....
...The reasoning of McKendry has not been questioned by subsequent case law or legislative action. Thus we conclude the reasoning in McKendry applies to prohibit the trial court from withholding, suspending, or deferring any portion of the 3-year sentence of imprisonment required by section 893.13(1)(c)(1) in favor of imposing a term of probation. We therefore reverse Mr. Crews' sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. [5] Not only was this sentence contrary to the requirements of section 893.13(1)(c)(1), it was also an improper downward departure....
...circumstances, justify a downward departure sentence). On remand, the court shall resentence Mr. Crews to a term of at least 3 years of imprisonment for this offense. Reversed and remanded. WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The language in section 893.13(1)(e)(1) currently appears in section 893.13(1)(c)(1), although the statute now refers to selling, manufacturing, or delivering cocaine; not to purchasing cocaine....
...addition to final adjudication, imposition of penalty or sentence, or other action." (Emphasis added.) The current version of section 397.705 no longer contains the phrase "instead of." See ch. 97-194, § 38, at 3726-27, Laws of Fla. [3] See, e.g., § 893.135(3), Fla....
...[5] We note that the 18-month drug offender probation sentence Crews received for possession of cocaine was permissible. See § 948.01(13), Fla. Stat. (2002) (currently § 948.20, Fla. Stat. (2004), permitting trial court to "stay and withhold the imposition of sentence" of a chronic substance abuser who violates section 893.13(6)(a) "and place the defendant on drug offender probation"); Jones v....
Copy

O'NEILL v. State, 661 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 627454

...The label given the out-of-state offense by the other jurisdiction is not controlling. Any other interpretation would render the inclusion of the provisions for qualified offense, meaningless. A comparison between the South Carolina statute, section 44-53-370D, [4] and the comparable Florida statute, section 893.13(1)(f) [5] , reveals the two statutes are substantially similar....
...A third conviction triggers more serious sanctions. Possession must be knowing or intentional. The thrust of this statute is to classify the offense by the number of convictions, imposing more serious classifications as the number of convictions increase. The Florida statute, section 893.13(1)(f), prohibits possession of a controlled substance, among which is cocaine, the offense for which O'Neill was convicted in South Carolina....
...Moreover, the actual language of the two statutes is substantially similar, and in part, contains virtually identical language. [8] *1268 Pursuant to section 775.084(c), it is not necessary that the statutes mirror one another. The out-of-state conviction need only be "substantially similar" to section 893.13(1)(f) in elements and penalties....
...For a second offense, the offender is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both... . . [5] We reject O'Neill's contention that the comparable Florida statute is section 893.13(1)(g), violation of which is a misdemeanor in the first degree. O'Neill concedes that the subject of the South Carolina conviction was cocaine, and subsection (1)(g) proscribes the possession of cannabis, not cocaine. Possession of cocaine is proscribed by section 893.13(1)(f), which provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or...
...a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of, a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this article. While section 893.13(1)(f) of the Florida statute reads: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid pr...
Copy

State v. Hampton, 44 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14538, 2010 WL 3813183

...h chain of custody. It seems quite clear that the State could have provided the missing testimony, and we see no basis to treat this issue as a matter of fundamental error. [3] Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
Copy

Earle v. State, 991 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4414291

...Among other issues, he argues that his fifteen-year sentences on four of eight drug charges are illegal. We affirm the trial court's denial of all of the defendant's claims except one. We agree that the fifteen year sentence on count VIII for delivery of Flunatrazepam is illegal. Section 893.13(1)(a)2., under which the defendant was charged, is a third degree felony with a maximum penalty of five years. See §§ 893.13(1)(a)2., 775.082, Fla....
Copy

Harris v. State, 695 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12426, 1996 WL 640545

PER CURIAM. Although we affirm the appellant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, we vacate the habitual felony offender sentence because possession with intent to sell is “a violation of section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” § 775.084(l)(a)3, Fla....
Copy

Brown v. State, 74 So. 3d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18969, 2011 WL 5964578

...November 30, 2011. Frankie Brown, Jr., pro se. Prior report: 49 So.3d 239. PER CURIAM. Frankie Brown, Jr., in his petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c), alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2008), is unconstitutional on its face based on the reasoning of the Federal District Court in Shelton v....
Copy

Berry v. State, 86 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1592165, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7185

...Further, there were no other factors present sufficient to give the arresting officer reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop which led to appellant’s arrest. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse. Because of this disposition, we do not address appellant’s constitutional challenge to section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

State v. Farley, 788 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 558095

...Because lesser sanctions had not been attempted or shown to be futile in securing the witness' attendance at deposition, we hold that striking the witness was improper and grant the writ. Matthew Farley was charged by information with delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1998) and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1998)....
Copy

State v. Stuart, 115 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 2230716, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8124

LaROSE, Judge. The State appeals an order dismissing charges of cocaine possession and sale against Vincent Stuart. See § 893.13(1)(a)(1), (6)(a), Fla....
Copy

A.S. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5577

...A small zip-lock baggie containing a green substance was found in appellant’s wallet. The substance was later positively identified by authorities as marijuana. Appellant was charged with committing a delinquent act based on the offense of possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

Crisel v. State, 561 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 66198

...The Blockburger analysis is only utilized where the court cannot discern the clear legislative intent. In State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1989), our supreme court has determined that the 1988 amendment to section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) makes the legislature's intent clear. [4] Section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987), states that sale of cannabis results in punishments as a third-degree felony, except as authorized elsewhere in the chapter or in Chapter 499 of Florida Statutes. Section 893.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), states that possession of any controlled substance results in punishment as a third-degree felony, except as authorized elsewhere in this chapter or in Chapter 499 of Florida Statutes. Section 893.13(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1987), provides for possession of not more than twenty grams of cannabis to be punishable as a first-degree misdemeanor. Section 893.135(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), provides for possession or sale of cannabis in excess of 100 pounds to be punishable as trafficking, a first-degree felony.
Copy

Kelly v. State, 957 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1425992

...The state agrees that appellant's claim that her ten-year sentence on count III for possession of alprazolam with intent to sell has merit because the sentence is illegal. Possession of alprazolam, a schedule IV controlled substance, even if it is with intent to sell, is a third degree felony. § 893.13(1)(a)2, Fla....
Copy

Rodriguez v. State, 958 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1373766

...e, and found marijuana. Subsequently, an information charged Mr. *470 Rodriguez with three third-degree felonies: cultivation of cannabis, possession of cannabis with intent to sell, and possession of over twenty grams of cannabis, all violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004)....
Copy

Giraldo v. State, 82 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1019998, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4782

...ourt withdraws its previous opinion and substitutes the following opinion. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011)], and acknowledging "uncertainty caused by [ Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]" but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Dougherty v. State, 33 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3908, 2010 WL 1131447

...Dougherty raises three claims, only one of which merits discussion. Dougherty was charged with three offenses: resisting an officer with violence in violation of section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1999); acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (1999); and criminal use of personal identification information in violation of section 817.568(2), Florida Statutes (1999)....
...Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1999), sets forth the criteria for habitual felony offender sentencing. Relevant to this case, a defendant is not eligible for habitual felony offender sentencing if the "felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions," is a violation of section 893.13, which relates to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
...Thus, the trial court interpreted the statute to provide that even if the offense for which the defendant was to be sentenced related to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance, as long as one of the prior convictions was not a violation of section 893.13, the defendant was subject to habitual felony offender sanctions....
...Although acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge requires a fraudulent method in obtaining the controlled substance, it clearly relates to possession of a controlled substance and is included within section 893.13....
...Section 775.084(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, is unambiguous. By its clear terms, it precludes habitual felony offender sentencing only where the "felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions is a violation of section 893.13" which relates to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

State v. SS, 8 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 WL 723500

...The State argues that the trial court erred in failing to impose a mandatory six-month driver's license suspension on S.S., a juvenile. We agree and reverse. S.S. pleaded no contest in several cases, including one involving possession of marijuana. See § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...The trial court refused to do so, implying that the sanction was not required when adjudication was withheld. Section 322.056(1) mandates suspension when a no contest plea is entered, adjudication is withheld, and the underlying offense is one enumerated under the statute—as is section 893.13....
Copy

Kenneth Lee Johnson v. State of Florida, 266 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...But we remand for entry of a written nunc pro tunc order finding Mr. Johnson competent to proceed. Background The State charged Mr. Johnson with one count of possession of more than twenty grams of cannabis, a third-degree felony. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...to enter a written order to that effect. After the competency hearing, Mr. Johnson filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress evidence. Thereafter, Mr. Johnson entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of the lesser-included offense of possession of cannabis. See § 893.13(6)(b)....
Copy

Paylan, M.D. v. Depart. of Health, 226 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2491562, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8500

...We write only to address this argument as we find the other issues raised by Paylan to be without merit. I. Background On August 22, 2014, Paylan was convicted after a jury trial of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a third-degree felony as set forth in section 893.13(7)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (2011), and fraudulent use of personal information, a 1Thestatute also applies to applicants who have been convicted of or have pleaded to similar felonies committed in other states or juri...
...came up for renewal, and she timely filed her application. On February 2, 2016, the Department notified Paylan that it denied her application pursuant to section 456.0635(3)(a) because she had been convicted of a third-degree felony violation of section 893.13(7)(a)(9)....
...Thus Paylan had a choice at the time she was charged with the criminal offenses. She 4The other subsections of the statute provide different time periods barring renewal depending on the offense level and whether the crime constituted a violation of section 893.13(6)(a). -7- could go to trial and hope to be found not guilty, at which point section 456.0635(3)(a) would be inapplicable....
Copy

Waters v. State, 657 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 371185

...775.084, Florida Statutes (1993), because all of his prior convictions were entered on the same day and thus counted as one conviction. In this case, the crimes for which the challenged habitual offender sentencing was imposed were two violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes. In addition, the predicate prior convictions offered in support of habitual offender sentencing involved violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...However, the instant offenses were committed on March 12, 1993, and April 1, 1993, before the effective date of the statutory amendments, thus the amendments do not apply. See Ford v. State, 652 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Consequently, appellant does not qualify for the section 893.13 exception provided in subsection (3) of the amended habitual *40 offender statute, as that exception was not in effect when he committed the offenses for which the habitual offender sentences were imposed....
Copy

Blackwell v. State, 638 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 264923

...e greater sentence or withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. Thompson, 638 So.2d at 117. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceeding consistent with this opinion. COBB, W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 775.084(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
Copy

Bryant v. State, 712 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 372381

...Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PARKER, Chief Judge. James Bryant appeals the final judgment after entering no contest pleas to the sale of cocaine and the sale of cocaine within 200 feet of a public park. Bryant contends that section 893.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), [1] is unconstitutionally vague....
...that the trial court failed to make a proper inquiry upon Bryant's motion to discharge his attorney and to determine whether Bryant was aware of the consequences of the habitualization. First, Bryant asserts that the phrase "public park" as used in section 893.13(1)(d) is unconstitutionally vague because it is impossible for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand the scope or location of these areas in which the statute creates enhanced sanctions....
Copy

State v. Messina, 13 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7293, 2009 WL 1606028

...ttorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. The state appeals the sentence imposed upon Andrew Messina by the trial court. Messina pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to sell pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2007), a third degree felony....
...must be sentenced under section 948.034(1), Florida Statutes (2007), which requires, among other things, that the offender reside at a community residential drug punishment center for ninety days. That section is applicable to offenders who violated section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2007). Appellant violated section 893.13(1)(a)2., the third degree felony, which is not governed by section 948.034(1)....
Copy

Wilcox v. State, 675 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 366294

...Kula, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. On the authority of our decision in Rogers v. State, 626 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we reverse Appellant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver/sell under section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). In Rogers, this court recognized that where a defendant is charged with violating section 893.13(1)(a) by possessing with intent to sell a controlled substance, a lesser-included instruction on simple possession is required to be given if requested. Id. at 340. Here, Appellant made such a request. Patently, one cannot be convicted of possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a) if all the elements of possession are not met....
Copy

State v. Lee, 583 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 117024

...Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 5, 1991. PER CURIAM. The state charged appellee, Jason Lee, by information with violating section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), for having purchased cocaine within 1,000 feet of the Pine Ridge Center School....
Copy

Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86898, 2011 WL 3236040

...11); the parties’ Supplemental Memoranda (Dkts. 25, 31, 36); and the Amicus Brief filed in support of Petitioner. (Dkt. 28) On May 13, 2002, the Florida Legislature enacted changes to Florida’s Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law, Fla. Stat. § 893.13 , as amended by Fla....
...imposition of an eighteen year sentence following his conviction. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request for habeas relief (Dkt. 1), and finds that Fla. Stat. § 893.13 is unconstitutional on its face....
...onstructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (l)(a),(6)(a) (2000). Addressing whether § 893.13 included guilty knowledge as an element of the offense, the Florida Supreme Court opined: We believe it was the intent of the legislature to prohibit the knowing possession of illicit items and to prevent persons from doing so by attaching a substantial criminal penalty to such conduct....
...d substance without regard to whether he does so purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Thus, In the absence of a mens rea requirement, delivery of cocaine it is a strict liability crime under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. §§ 893.101 , 893.13....
...On May 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant petition for federal habeas corpus relief. (Dkt. 1) Petitioner advances nine grounds as a basis for habeas relief. (See Dkt. 1 at 5-35) Of initial importance here is ground one, Petitioner’s claim that Fla. Stat. § 893.13 is facially unconstitutional because it entirely eliminates mens rea as an element of a drug offense and creates a strict liability offense under which Petitioner was sentenced to eighteen years in prison....
...the trial court without opinion and without a merits-based analysis of the federal constitutional claims, and thus its per curiam affirmances do not constitute an adjudication of Petitioner’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 on the merits....
...See Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 784-85 ; see also Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 434 So.2d at 311 . Therefore, no deference is due to the state court’s decision. See id. As such, this Court reviews de novo Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to Fla. Stat. § 893.13 , as amended by § 893.101, and finds the statute to be facially unconstitutional, as it is violative of the Constitution’s due process clause. 6 B. Fla. Stat. § 893.13 is Facially Unconstitutional Because it Results in a Strict Liability Offense With a Harsh Penalty, Stigma, and Overbroad Regulation of Otherwise Innocuous Conduct Petitioner’s facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute is properly prem...
...lves consideration of: (1) the penalty imposed; (2) the stigma associated with conviction; and (3) the type of conduct purportedly regulated. Staples, 511 U.S. at 619-20 . Evaluated under this framework, the Florida drug statute fails completely. 1. Section 893.13 Violates Due Process Because its Penalties are Too Severe It cannot reasonably be asserted that the penalty for violating Florida’s drug statute is “relatively small.” A violation of § 893.13(l)(a)(l), for delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Schedule I, Fla. Stat. 893.03(1), is a second degree felony, ordinarily punishable by imprisonment for up to fifteen years. Fla. Stat. § 775.082 (3)(c). For habitual violent felony offenders, such as Petitioner, a violation of § 893.13(l)(a)(l) is punishable by imprisonment for up to thirty years and includes a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence....
...Stat. § 775.084 (l)(b). Other provisions of Florida’s drug statute subject offenders to even harsher penalties, including ordinary imprisonment for thirty years for first time offenders and life imprisonment for recidivists. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13 (l)(b) (delivery of more than 10 grams of a schedule I substance); § 893.13(l)(e) (delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, school, park, community center, or public recreational facility). No strict liability statute carrying penalties of the magnitude of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 has ever been upheld under federal law....
...at 17) This argument is flawed in three respects. First, Petitioner asserts a facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute, not an as-applied challenge as the State implies. Second, Petitioner’s “enhaneeable” status was triggered by his conviction under § 893.13, a facially unconstitutional statute....
...rdingly, the Court concludes that the penalties imposed by Florida’s strict liability drug statute are too severe to pass constitutional muster, and doubly so when considered in conjunction with the other two factors in the tripartite analysis. 2. Section 893.13 Violates Due Process Because it Creates Substantial Social Stigma In this regard, there can be little question that a conviction for a second degree felony coupled with a sentence of fifteen to thirty years tends to “gravely besmirch” a person’s reputation....
...r’s already sullied character. The Court finds, therefore, if it does not go without saying, that a felony conviction under Florida’s strict liability drug statute gravely besmirches an individual’s reputation. See Heller, 579 F.2d at 995 . 3. Section 893.13 Violates Due Process Because it Regulates Inherently Innocent Conduct Finally, Florida’s strict liability drug statute also runs afoul of due process limits when viewed from the perspective of the nature of the activity regulated....
...ecause the government was required to prove that the defendant knew he possessed something that was “highly dangerous and of a type likely to be subject to regulation.” Id. at 634-35 , 114 S.Ct. 1793 . Under this analytical framework, Fla. Stat. § 893.13 cannot survive constitutional scrutiny when considered in relation to the conduct it regulates — the delivery of any substance....
...y eliminating a mens rea requirement. Staples, 511 U.S. at 616 n. 11, 114 S.Ct. 1793 . (Dkt. 36 at 13) This, the State suggests, is an express pronouncement that “the legislature’s abolition of a mens rea requirement does not render [ Fla. Stat. § 893.13 ] ......
...unconstitutional” because it is within the legislature’s power to “do away with a mens re a requirement.” (Dkt. 36 at 18) To support its position, the State cites several Florida cases 11 upholding challenges to the facial constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 ; however, these cases contain no analysis of or citation to the tripartite constitutional analysis employed by the United States Supreme Court in Staples . (Dkt. 7 at 5) The States cites no Florida appellate case that has addressed the constitutionality of this statute under the federal Constitution. Most recently, a Florida Circuit Court concluded that Fla. Stat. § 893.135 (l)(b), the cocaine trafficking provision, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied....
...2319 , even if the legislative bodies choose to eliminate elements from criminal offenses “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not yo in this reyard.” (emphasis added). The State of Florida exceeded those bounds in this instance. C. Respondents’ Remaining Arguments Regarding Fla. Stat. § 893.13 In a final effort to salvage § 893.13, Respondents suggest any constitutional infirmity should be overlooked because: (1) the defendant may raise lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense, rending the statute something other than a strict liability offense (Dkt....
...§ 893.101 (2). On its face the statute punishes actual, constructive, and/or attempted delivery without any proof of knowledge — not only of the illicit nature of the substance but, apparently, even of its delivery in fact. See Fla. Stat. §§ 893.02 (6), 893.13(l)(a)....
...the delivery itself. (See Dkt. 8 at B. 338) Thus, both Florida’s legislative body and its courts have made clear that this statute is a strict liability statute. *1308 2. “Tough Luck!” is no Answer to the Constitutional Infirmity of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 Additionally, the State argues that Fla. Stat. § 893.13 does not regulate innocuous conduct since “the possession of cocaine is never legal,” and the imposition of harsh penalties without proof of mens rea is simply a risk drug dealers undertake for selling or delivering cocaine....
...The bag is then given to another for safekeeping. Caught in the act, the hapless victim is guilty based upon the only two elements of the statute: delivery (actual, constructive, or attempted) and the illicit nature of the substance. See Fla. Stat. §§ 893.02 (6), 893.13(l)(a)....
...nd prolonged deprivation of liberty unless he acts with criminal intent — and binding Supreme Court precedent governing the constitutional analysis of strict liability offenses. See Staples, 511 U.S. at 619-20 , 114 S.Ct. 1793 . Because Fla. Stat. § 893.13 imposes harsh penalties, gravely besmirches an individual’s reputation, and regulates and punishes otherwise innocuous conduct without proof of knowledge or other criminal intent, the Court finds it violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face....
...probation, community control, control release, conditional release, parole or court-ordered or lawfully imposed supervision 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance....
...1 at 36) and any other outstanding motions are DENIED; (4) The Court will not certify any issue for appellate consideration; (5) In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a *1316 Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring Fla. Stat. § 893.13 , as amended by Fla Stat....
...§ 893.101 . It is precisely that act of engrafting that prompted the legislature to amend the statute. Thus, the Court must consider the statute's constitutionality bereft of mens rea. . Nor does Balint support the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 because, unlike the provision upheld in Balint , § 893.13 does not require proof that the defendant knew what he was delivering or even that he was delivering it, much less that it was known by him to be dangerous....
...Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.2. The source of this distinction is nowhere apparent in the statute, and the knowledge requirement is, as noted above, not a factor in the delivery instruction. See Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (l)(a)....
Copy

Anderson v. State, 447 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19868

substance [§ 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat.] and possession of a controlled substance [§ 893.13(l)(e), Fla
Copy

Cooper v. State, 15 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9771, 2009 WL 2069044

...Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982); Tucker, Craft v. State, 441 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. PALMER and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (2007). [2] § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

State v. Teague, 275 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

of twenty grams of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2017). *829" Section
Copy

Hobby v. State, 761 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 955615

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diana K. Bock, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. BENTLEY, E. RANDOLPH, Associate (Senior) Judge. Kevin Hobby was convicted of possessing and selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a church. He challenges the sentence imposed upon him under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), which enhances penalties for drug crimes committed in proximity to places of worship....
...He argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that it violates his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, that it violates the Establishment Clause, and that it interferes with the freedom of religion. We hold that the statute is constitutional and affirm. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), states the following, in part: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled...
...State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla.1994) (holding that a statute must provide a definite warning of what conduct is prohibited). Specifically, he argues that it fails to define the terms "church or religious organization," "regularly conducts," and "religious services." In rejecting a vagueness challenge of section 893.13(1)(e), the Fifth District in Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), stated that the first inquiry must be whether the defendant's conduct clearly violates the statute. [A] statute like paragraph 893.13(1)(e) which does not purport to regulate constitutionally protected conduct can be struck down as being unconstitutionally vague only if the statutory language is so vague that it fails to give adequate notice of any conduct that the statute proscribes....
...ypothetical conduct of others. See Jean v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1392, ___ So.2d ___, 1999 WL 393477 (Fla. 4th DCA June 16, 1999) (rejecting vagueness claim where the defendant's conduct fell within the conduct proscribed by the plain meaning of section 893.13(1)(e))....
...Here, the classification is reasonably related to the purpose of the statute and applies equally to all persons who sell, manufacture, or deliver controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a place of worship. Therefore, it passes constitutional muster. Hobby next argues that section 893.13(1)(e) violates the Establishment Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions....
...Here, the statute does not interfere with or promote the practice of religion and has the legitimate secular purpose of deterring drug sales near places where citizens, "especially families and young people, have a tendency to gather." See Easley v. State, 755 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that section 893.13(1)(e) passes the three-part test enunciated in Lemon ), review denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000). Thus, it does not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, we hold section 893.13(1)(e) to be constitutional and affirm Hobby's judgment and sentence. Affirmed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur. NOTES [1] Under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), the degree of the offense is elevated one degree because of the location of the drug transaction. The enhancement portion of section 893.13(1)(e), states the following: Any person who violates this paragraph with respect to: 1....
Copy

B.B. v. State, 117 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3449546, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10945

SLEET, Judge. B.B., a juvenile, challenges an adjudication of delinquency for: (1) providing false identification to a law enforcement officer resulting in adverse consequences to another, § 901.36(2), Fla. Stat. (2011); (2) possession of cannabis, § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Osborne v. State, 820 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1466572

...osed for the last felony conviction. See Lowenthal v. State, 699 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Id. at 318. Additionally, the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced and one of the two prior felony convictions may not be a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

Jones v. State, 639 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1432

...At resentencing, the court should either sentence within the guidelines or, if it believes a more severe punishment is justified, it should so advise appellant and allow him the option of *149 withdrawing his plea or accepting the greater sentence. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), a third degree felony....
Copy

Randall v. State, 613 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1223, 1993 WL 12399

...[sic], Escam-bia County, FL; July 31, 1980; 2. Possession of Cocaine, Case No. 87-5254, Leon County, FL; May 25, 1988; and 3. Possession of Paraphernalia, Case No. 87-5254, Leon County, FL; May 25, 1988. However, of the three prior offenses listed, only possession of cocaine is a felony. § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1987). Possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia are both misdemeanors. § 893.13(l)(f), Fla....
Copy

Smith v. State, 949 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 162750

...have been resolved in favor of the verdict, *255 whether there is competent, substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and judgment. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). Section 893.13(1)(c) governs the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a park....
...wned recreational facility. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "community center" means a facility operated by a nonprofit community-based organization for the provision of recreational, social, or educational services to the public. . . . § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...Nonetheless, the state failed to adduce evidence which proved that the Academy of Excellence was a school at the time of the drug transaction. Id. at 712. The state presented evidence which established that two years before the charged offense, the Academy of Excellence was a school within the meaning of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 163432

...1 BENTON, C.J., WOLF, DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, LEWIS, ROBERTS, CLARK, WETHERELL, ROWE, MARSTILLER, RAY, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur. . We note appellate counsel’s concession that the trial court did not err in adjudicating Appellant guilty of a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

Ramirez v. State, 125 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 163461, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 569

...n affirmative] prescription defense is ... available to those who have a valid prescription written directly on their behalf for the pills in their possession.” McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Specifically, section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), provides, It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a va...
Copy

Wagner v. State, 88 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 156, 2012 WL 75107

...om a practitioner, and two counts of obtaining Oxycodone and Xanax by fraud. Wagner makes two arguments on appeal: (1) that the trial court reversibly erred and committed fundamental error when it added the phrase, “for a lawful purpose,” to the section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), “prescription defense” jury instruction; and (2) that the trial court erroneously denied his motions for judgment of acquittal....
...ust 15, 2007. At trial, the State introduced prescriptions from Dr. Terrero dated July 15 and August 15. The State argued that Wagner obtained a prescription from Dr. Doldan on July 31, 2007, which made the August 15 prescription illegal pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a)....
...misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Id. at 1194 (quoting Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Pursuant to section 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes (2007), it is unlawful for any person: To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person makin...
...led to a jury instruction on this defense. O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In Knipp v. State, 67 So.3d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), this court rejected *253 the State’s argument that by obtaining prescriptions in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)8., Knipp did not possess a valid prescription as a matter of law: [NJothing in either sections 499.03(2) or 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes, eliminates the valid prescription defense to trafficking or possession of a controlled substance if the prescription is obtained in violation of the doctor shopping statute....
...That may have been the intention of the Legislature, but we are constrained by the rules of statutory interpretation to follow the plain language of the statute. Id. at 380 (internal citations omitted). We hold that Wagner’s alleged violation of section 893.13(7)(a)8....
Copy

Holland v. State, 210 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 486955, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1438

...A field test of the substance “appeared to test positive” for cocaine, but the substance was “sent to FDLE for verification.” In March 2016, Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(l)(c)l., Florida Statutes (2015) (count I) and possession of drug paraphernalia—the small plastic baggies (count II). Appellant did not waive the speedy trial period. In May 2016, after the speedy trial period expired, the state filed an amended information reducing the charge in count I to possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a) because it was determined by- the FDLE testing that the white powdery substance was pyrro-lidinovalerophenone (PVP) * rather than cocaine....
Copy

Noel v. State, 125 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 692118, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3195

...Yves Noel appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion. He claims that his sentence for delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school is illegal, because the jury failed to make an essential finding to support the increased punishment under section 893.13(l)(c)l....
...It does not appear he raised the issue he raised in the instant motion in any of the prior filings. In the instant motion, filed in January 2012, appellant pointed out that, with respect to count III, the statute requires that the offense occur between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. § 893.13(l)(c)l., Fla....
Copy

Tyler v. State, 107 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 673647, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2994

BENTON, C.J. On direct appeal, James Tyler, III, argues that his convictions both for the sale of cocaine and marijuana contrary to section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (2010), and for possession of the same cocaine and marijuana contrary to section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2010), violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. He also challenges the facial constitutionality of section 893.13. We affirm all four convictions. Turning first to the second point appellant raises, we are guided by a recent decision of our supreme court that definitively construed the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), and rejected the same constitution *548 al challenge to the same provisions (albeit of the 2010 version of the statute) that the appellant makes here....
...1st DCA 2011) (holding that “convictions and sentences for the sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver methamphetamine in violation of section 898.13, Florida Statutes, (Count 1) and [for] trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes, (Count 2) violated [the] constitutional protection against double jeopardy”). Our supreme court also found a double jeopardy violation where convictions both for trafficking under section 893.135, Florida Statutes, and for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell under section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes, 2 arose from the same facts....
...ssential element of sale”). The McCloud court grounded its decision on a straightforward Blockburger analysis. Focusing on the fact that the same statutory subsection that makes sale a criminal offense outlaws “possession with intent to sell,” § 893.13(l)(a), Fla....
...possession-with-intent-to-sell statute. Paccione thus proceeded on the premise that possession with intent to sell, on the one hand, and the actual sale, on the other, of the same illicit substance should be viewed, not as alternative ways in which section 893.13(l)(a) could be violated, but as two separate crimes, albeit proscribed by the same, undivided subsubsection of the statute....
...d in the charging instrument. See Johnson, 712 So.2d at 381 (holding that “the court must focus on the particular component of the statute that is in issue”). By limiting its analysis to the “possession component” of the trafficking statute (section 893.135), thereby holding in Johnson that any “alternative conduct” which could also prove trafficking under section 893.135 need not be considered in double jeopardy analysis, the supreme court seemed to take “the accusatory pleading” 5 *551 if not “the proof adduced at trial” into account....
...1st DCA 2011); St. Fabre v. State, 548 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Under this line of authority, where a defendant has been convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance and sale of the same substance, in violation of applicable subsections of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), double jeopardy prohibitions have not been violated....
...Section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: "... For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.” . Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), under which appellant was charged, provides: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
...Here Maxwell was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery, one causing great bodily harm and the other for use of a deadly weapon. But the acts were perpetrated by Maxwell on the same victim at the same time. Only one conviction can stand.”). . Section 893.135(l)(b) 1., Florida Statutes (2010), provides: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine, as described in s....
...y information that JAMES TYLER, III, in Alachua County, Florida, March 10, 2011, did then and there unlawfully and for a valuable consideration sell and deliver to *551 AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER a controlled substance, to-wit: CRACK COCAINE, contrary to Section 893.13(Z )(a)(Z), Florida Statutes....
..., further alleges, by information that JAMES TYLER, III, in Alachua County, Florida, on or about March 10, 2011, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly for a valuable consideration sell and deliver to an undercover officer cannabis, contrary to Section 893.13(I)(a)(2) Florida Statu[t]es....
...th, further alleges, by information that JAMES TYLER, III, in Alachua County, Florida, on or about March 10, 2011, did then and there unlawfully have in HIS actual or constructive possession a controlled substance, to-wit: CRACK COCAINE, contrary to 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes....
...Alachua County, Florida, on or about March 10, 2011, was unlawfully in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance named or described in Section 893.03(Z )(c), Florida Statutes, to-wit: not more than 20 grams of cannabis, contrary to Section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Gainer v. State, 633 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 51090

...Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Schwartz Monzell Gainer appeals final judgments adjudicating him guilty, on account of multiple transactions, of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute (deliver) in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), of attempted sale or delivery of cocaine, and of being a principal to the sale or delivery of cocaine....
...He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for possession with intent to deliver, and to ten-year terms on each of the other two convictions, the sentences to run concurrently. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on simple possession of cocaine, proscribed by Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Pantle v. State, 784 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 166792

...On June 23, 1997, Pantle pleaded guilty in case number 96-20055 to home-invasion robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of section 812.135, Florida Statutes (1995), and in case number 97-04681 to possession of a controlled substance, a third-degree felony, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

Horne v. State, 35 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1807, 2010 WL 567196

...We write to address his claim that on count one of case number 04-12645 the circuit court should not have imposed any sentence greater than 87.525 months. In case number 04-12645, Mr. Horne was charged as follows: count one, delivery of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), and count two, possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of section 893.13(6)(a). Methamphetamine is *41 a controlled substance named or described in section 893.03(2)(c)(4), and delivery of methamphetamine is a second-degree felony under section 893.13(1)(a)(1)....
...Horne's minimum permissible sentence under the Code was 87.525 months' imprisonment. Although our prior opinion might be read to suggest otherwise, the statutory maximum sentence for delivery of methamphetamine is fifteen years' imprisonment. [2] §§ 775.082(3)(c), 893.03(2)(c)(4), 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla....
...Horne in all respects. Affirmed. WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The Criminal Punishment Code applies "to all felony offenses, except capital felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1998." § 921.002, Fla. Stat. (2003). [2] The crime defined in section 893.13(1)(a) may constitute a second-degree felony, a third-degree felony, or a first-degree misdemeanor depending on the nature of the controlled substance involved....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 66222

...This case is a stronger case than Gibbs for rejecting a double jeopardy challenge because the second offense here is not simple possession as in Gibbs but possession with intent to sell/deliver. There are several ways to analyze the differences between these crimes. Pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), a person traffics in cocaine either by knowingly selling, delivering or bringing into this state 28 grams or more of cocaine or by being in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine....
...ntending to sell the cocaine. See Gibbs, 676 So.2d at 1008 (Gross, J., concurring). Trafficking in cocaine also requires proof that the quantity of cocaine was at least 28 grams. *1126 For the crime of possession with intent to sell/deliver cocaine, section 893.13(1)(a), an essential element is proof of specific scienter; i.e., intent to sell or deliver the cocaine....
Copy

Fergien v. State, 79 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 513011, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2464

...weight rather than the sufficiency of the evidence. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the motion using the correct legal standard. We note that Fergien has asked to file supplemental briefs challenging the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2008)....
Copy

Diaz-muriell v. State, 81 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 469826, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2172

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. February 15, 2012. Jerson Diaz-Muriell, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before CORTIÑAS, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Little v....
Copy

Crump v. State, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 469815, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2170

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. February 15, 2012. Shadrick Crump, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before CORTIÑAS, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Little v....
Copy

Winthrop v. State, 974 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 268934

...of cocaine in case number 98-02747 is illegal. Thus we reverse and remand for resentencing on this conviction only. In all other respects, we affirm. Winthrop was convicted of one count of sale of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), in each of two separate cases....
...However, Winthrop's habitual felony offender sentence for his possession conviction in case number 98-02747 is illegal and must be reversed. This court has held that "lplursuant to section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), a defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." Virgil v....
...State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1180 (Fla.2001) (holding that "a habitual offender sentence, which is solely a creature of statute, is illegal where the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense prohibited the imposition of a habitual offender sentence"). No such exception for convictions under section 893.13 existed in the habitual violent felony offender statute in effect when Winthrop committed his crimes....
Copy

State v. S.P., 24 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20406

...In the state’s petition for delinquency filed on June 27, it alleged that M.F. “did unlawfully and feloniously sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance, to-wit: CANNABIS, ... in violation of [section] 893.13 [of the] Florida Statutes [1987].” Id....
Copy

State v. SP, 24 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 WL 5126238

...In the state's petition for delinquency filed on June 27, it alleged that M.F. "did unlawfully and feloniously sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance, to-wit: CANNABIS, ... in violation of [section] 893.13 [of the] Florida Statutes [1987]." Id....
Copy

Sheppard v. State, 996 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 5352908

...The circuit court even found in its order that "[t]here was no testimony anyone saw the Defendant and Co-Defendant exchange drugs." In addition, no drugs were found on Sheppard when he was arrested. Therefore, there is no evidence that Sheppard actually or constructively possessed cocaine. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Coward v. State, 944 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3735115

...He also argues that the state failed to prove that the sales had occurred within 1000 feet of a school, because there was no evidence as to the age of the students. We agree. State v. Roland, 577 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (kindergarten/preschool is not a school so as to warrant enhanced penalties under section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes); State v....
Copy

Zeigler v. State, 647 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 695614

...crime of possession of cocaine. We find that the appellant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial. The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2013-05, 153 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2014).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2014 WL 6977938

...10 APPENDIX 25.2 DRUG ABUSE – SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER § 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a), Fla....
...The substance was (specific substance alleged). Give if possession is charged. 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3), Fla....
...If the State charges the felony of Delivery of More Than 20 Grams of Cannabis, the jury must make a finding as to the weight. 3. or 4. The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. Definitions. Give as applicable. 11 Cannabis. § § § 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT— 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. None 893.13(6) 25.7 Possession of a Controlled Substance, if Possession With Intent is charged Delivery of 20 893.13(3) 25.2 Grams or Less of Cannabis if Delivery of More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 If delivery of cannabis is charged 893.13(3) If possession of cannabis is charged 893.13(6)(b) 15 If possession is charged and offense would 893.13(6)(a) be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 Comment If the State alleges the defendant possessed cannabis, in an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-included offense of simple possession. See Note §§ 893.13(3) and 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...§ 893.03(1)(c)46.-50., 114.-142., 151.-159, or 166.-169., in an amount more than 3 grams, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b). There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla....
...1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.3 DRUG ABUSE – SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS § 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY,OR POSSESSION OF MORE THAN IN EXCESS OF 10 GRAMS — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, purchase, or delivery 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 of controlled substance if and (2)(a) sale, purchase, or delivery is charged Possession of a controlled 893.13(6) 25.7 substance, if possession is charged Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged If possession is charged 893.13(6)(a) Comment There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla....
...989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.4 DRUG ABUSE – DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, manufacture, 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 delivery, etc. Delivery of a Controlled Substance Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged If possession is charged and 893.13(6)(a) the offense would be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 If possession of cannabis is 893.13(6)(b) charged 22 If delivery of cannabis is 893.13(3) charged Comment There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.5 DRUG ABUSE – BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...stance, you should find (defendant) [him] [her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. Lesser Included Offenses BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE – 893.13(5) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, manufacture, 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 delivery, etc. Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged If possession is charged and 893.13(6)(a) the offense would be a second degree felony under 893.13(1)(a)1 If possession of cannabis is 893.13(6)(b charged ) If delivery of cannabis is 893.13(3) charged 25 Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1997 [697 So....
...2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.6 DRUG ABUSE – CONTRABAND SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS § 893.13(1)(c) – (f), and (h) Fla....
...[delivered] [possessed with intent to sell] [possessed with intent to manufacture] [possessed with intent to deliver] a certain substance. Give 2a, or 2b as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c)-(f) and (h), Fla....
...organization regularly conducts religious services]; [a convenience business]; [the real property comprising a public housing facility]; [the real property comprising an assisted living facility]. § 893.13(1)(c-f), Fla....
...§ 421.03(12) Fla. Stat. The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute. 30 Community Center. §893.13(1)(c) Fla....
...luded Offenses DRUG ABUSE — CONTRABAND SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS — 893.13(1)(c) – (f) and (h) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Drug abuse possession 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 Sale, Manufacture, or 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Delivery of a controlled substance, if Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery is charged Possession of a None 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is charged Comment This instruction is based on section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and adapted from the standard instruction on sale of contraband near a school. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2000 [765 So. 2d 692], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.7 DRUG ABUSE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...The substance was (specific substance alleged). (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b) Fla....
...14-142, 151-159, or 166-169 Fla. Stat. 4. The [cannabis weighed more than 20 grams] [(insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46-50 , 114-142, 151-159, or 166-169) weighed more than three grams]. § 893.13(6)(c) Fla. Stat. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c) Fla....
...ted in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] [mixture containing (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] weighed more than 10 grams. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. § § 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b) Fla....
...(defendant) [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE – 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis or Possession of Less than 3 Grams of a Substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46-50, 114-142, 151-159, or 166-169, if the felony level of these substances is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 36 Comment Note § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...3 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.8 DRUG ABUSE – OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9, Fla....
...t This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...a certain substance. 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
... sell heroin but actually sold cannabis, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.-3., Fla....
...document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense. TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS — 893.135(1)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. Trafficking 893.135(1)(a)1 25.9 offenses requiring and 2 lower quantities of cannabis *Possession of *893.13(6) 25.7 Cannabis, if Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt, except when delivery or 777.04 5.1 conspiracy is charged Comm...
...However, Possession of Cannabis is a necessarily-lesser included offense if the defendant is charged with Trafficking via Possession. * Possession of More Than 20 Grams of Cannabis is a third-degree felony. Possession of Not More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is a first degree misdemeanor. See § 893.13(6) Fla. Stat. Delivery of Less than 20 Grams of Cannabis Without Consideration is a first degree misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3) Fla....
...So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...a certain substance. 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
... See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.-2., Fla....
...For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense. 50 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE — 893.135(1)(b)1 & 2 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Trafficking offenses 893.135(1)(b)1 25.10 requiring lower quantities of cocaine Possession of Cocaine, 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 if Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt except when 777.04 5.1 delivery or conspiracy is charged...
...2d 245], and 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM] [OXYCODONE] [HYDROCODONE] [HYDROMORPHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED)] § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...[mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c)1.-2., Fla....
...document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense. TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS — 893.135(1)(c)1 and 2 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Trafficking offenses 893.135(1)(c)1 25.11 requiring lower quantities of illegal drugs Possession of a 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt except where 777.04 5.1 delivery or conspiracy is charged...
...2d 985], 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla....
...The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. 3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(d)1.a.-c., Fla....
...For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense. 63 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE — 893.135(1)(d) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Trafficking offenses 893.135(1)(d)1.a 25.9 requiring lower and b quantities of phencyclidine Possession of a 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 Phencyclidine, if Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery or conspiracy is charged...
...2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)]. 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(e)1.a.-c., Fla....
...For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense. 69 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE — 893.135(1)(e)1 CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. ONE Trafficking 893.135(1)(e)1.a 25.13 offenses requiring and b lower quantities of methaqualone Possession of 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 Methaqualone, if Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt except when delivery 777.04(1) 5.1 or conspiracy is charged Commen...
...See 25.2 for definition of "possession." Lesser Included Offenses CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES — 951.22 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. None Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of less than 893.13(6)(b) 20 grams of cannabis Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 Firearm Carrying a Concealed 790.01(1) 10.1...
...Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE] GROUNDS OF A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION – 944.47(1)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
...Lesser Included Offenses [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION – 944.47(1)(a) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
Copy

Bennett v. State, 546 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 86794

...Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant Roger Bennett challenges an order of the trial court upholding the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). Appellant was convicted and sentenced for purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)....
...2d DCA 1989) (Hall, J., Dissenting), and held that chapter 87-243 did not violate the one subject rule. See also State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We therefore affirm the order of the trial court upholding the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e)....
...We have examined and we reject appellant's remaining points on appeal. As in Blankenship, we find the issue of whether chapter 87-243 violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution to be of great public importance and certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Affirmed....
Copy

Garrison v. State, 530 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 79819

...o this time. He tried to back out of this transaction, but was frightened by Peschau's threats of violence. The defense attorney requested jury instructions for two other drug offenses as lesser included offenses to trafficking — simple possession (§ 893.13(1)(e)), (a third degree felony), and sale, delivery or possession with intent to sell, purchase or deliver (§ 893.13(1)(a)1., (a second degree felony)....
...The trial judge refused to give any drug offense instructions other than the one on trafficking. Under the instructions and the verdict form, the jury had the option to find that the two lesser amounts (28 grams or more, and 200 grams or more) were involved in this crime. Under the trafficking offense statute (§ 893.135(1)(b)), had the jury found Garrison guilty under one of the lesser amounts, he would have received a less severe mandatory prison term and a smaller fine....
...fficking statute constitute lesser included offenses of that provision. Rather, the stepped-up amounts constitute, in our view, different degrees of punishment for the same offense. [2] *367 The issue, therefore, is whether or not simple possession (§ 893.13(1)(e)) and sale or possession (§ 893.13(1)(a)) are lesser included offenses of the crime of trafficking....
...State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988). However, in Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), the court receded sufficiently from Rotenberry, supra ., that we think that both for double jeopardy purposes as well as required jury instructions, sections 893.13(1)(e) and 893.13(1)(a)(1) must be considered to be lesser included offenses of the trafficking statute....
...[3] Failure to give an instruction on these offenses in this trafficking case is reversible error. In defense of the trial judge, however, we note that Carawan was decided some months after Garrison's trial was conducted. We do not think it necessary to determine whether or not section 893.13(1)(e) and/or section 893.13(1)(a)(1) are necessarily lesser included offenses of trafficking under criminal rule 3.510(b) because they are at least permissively included, [4] category two offenses, and the evidence and information in this case sufficiently charged and would sustain Garrison's conviction under either one....
...1988); Daophin v. State, 511 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Wilcott v. State, 509 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1987); State v. Wimberly, 498 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1986); State v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1983). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ORFINGER and DANIEL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §§ 893.135(1)(b)(3); 893.03(2)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. (1985). [2] Section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985) states that the "felony shall be known as `trafficking in cocaine,'" and then delineates different punishments based on amount....
Copy

Howard v. State, 824 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12523, 2002 WL 1990874

...Howard’s appropriate remedy is to file a rule 3.850 motion in the trial court alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Accordingly, we deny this petition without prejudice to seek appropriate collateral relief. Petition for Belated Appeal DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THOMPSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Gonzalez, 121 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 4525576, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13676

GERBER, J. The state appeals from the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss numerous drug trafficking-related charges under section 893.135(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2009). The state argues the court erred in finding that the state was limited to charging the defendant, a medical doctor, with illicit conduct by a prescribing practitioner under section 893.13(8), Florida Statutes (2009)....
...In each of those twenty counts, the state alleged that the defendant knowingly sold or delivered to a person, “by means of a prescription written in bad faith and not in the course of professional practice,” various controlled substances, contrary to sections 893.135(l)(c) and 893.05, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 893.135(l)(c), in pertinent part, provides: *627 (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s....
...f 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000. c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000. § 893.135(l)(c)l.c., Fla....
...may cause the same to be administered by a licensed nurse or an intern practitioner under his or her direction and supervision only.... § 893.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The defendant moved to dismiss the twenty counts alleging violations of sections 893.135(l)(c) and 893.05. In the motion, the defendant raised two primary arguments: (1) section 893.135 does not specifically criminalize a practitioner’s illicit prescriptions of controlled substances; and (2) another law, section 893.13(8), Florida Statutes (2009), specifically addresses a prescribing practitioner’s alleged illicit conduct and, therefore, the state could not charge him with the more general crime of drug trafficking under section 893.135. Section 893.13(8), in pertinent part, provides: (a) ......
...*628 (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), if a prescribing practitioner has violated paragraph (a) and received $1,000 or more in payment for writing one or more prescriptions or, in the case of a prescription written for a controlled substance described in s. 893.135, has written one or more prescriptions for a quantity of a controlled substance which, individually or in the aggregate, meets the threshold for the offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under s. [893.135], the violation is reclassified as a felony of the second degree and ranked in level 4 of the Criminal Punishment Code. § 893.13(8), Fla. Stat. (2009). The state’s response to the motion to dismiss raised two primary arguments: (1) section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase, that its provisions apply “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13,” plainly permits the state to charge prescribing practitioners under section 893.135 and not under section 893.13(8); and (2) section 893.13(8) does not restrict the state’s prosecution of prescribing practitioners, but rather provides the state with an alternative means to prosecute prescribing practitioners. The circuit court entered an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court based its ruling on three grounds: (1)“The purpose of the phrase, ‘notwithstanding the provisions of section 893.13’ in section 893.135 was an attempt by the Legislature to ‘harmonize the two statutes.’ Staff analysis to the 1980 amendment to section 893.135, which added the ‘notwithstanding1 language, indicates that it was added in order to prevent offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs from being prosecuted instead for simple possession under section 893.13, effectively allowing defendants to escape the harsher penalties for trafficking under section 893.135. Therefore, it is clear that the language was added in order to prevent the problem of duplication of penalties that existed with the proposed amendments.” (2) “Section 893.135 was designed to address the problem of people selling, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, delivering, buying, or bringing into the State of Florida an amount of controlled substances greater than the threshold proscribed by the Florida Legislature. The Information in this case alleges that the Defendant essentially wrote prescriptions in bad faith. This conduct is governed explicitly by section 893.13(8).” (3) “[T]he State argues it has the choice to charge a defendant under section 893.13(8) or in the alternative, under section 893.135. However, this Court fails to conceive of a situation where the State would choose to charge the same offense under section 893.13 rather than 893.135 where the penalties for trafficking under section 893.135 are much more severe.” (numerals added; internal citations, other quotations, and footnote omitted)....
...4th DCA 2012) (a circuit court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo). *629 We conclude that the circuit court should have denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Our conclusion is based on three grounds. First, the plain language of section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase controls. Section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase provides that the statute applies “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13.” Thus, the state may charge a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(1) notwithstanding the existence of section 893.13(8). Put another way, the existence of section 893.13(8) does not preclude the state from charging a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(l)(c)....
...State, 914 So.2d 942, 945 (Fla.2005) (“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning, we construe it accordingly, and need not resort to additional rules of construction.”). Second, even if the plain language of section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase did not control, the United States Supreme Court, our Florida Supreme Court, and this court all have held that when two statutes govern a defendant’s criminal conduct, a prosecutor has the discretion to decide whether and how to prosecute the defendant....
...State, 693 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[U]n-der Florida’s constitution, the state attorney has the discretion in deciding whether and how to prosecute a defendant.”) (citation omitted). Applied here, the state has the discretion to prosecute the defendant under section 893.135(l)(c) — in order to impose that statute’s penalties of a first-degree felony with mandatory minimum prison sentences and fines — in lieu of section 893.13(8)’s penalties of either a second- or third-degree felony. Third, denial of the motion to dismiss would be consistent with pre-section 893.13(8) precedent permitting the state to prosecute a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(l)’s predecessor statute, section 893.13(l)(a)....
...ions, does so in bad faith and thereby provides a user with the vehicle with which to obtain the drug [which the user] could not otherwise acquire.”). *630 The defendant nevertheless argues we should hold that section 893.18(8) is controlling over section 893.135(l)(c)....
...overing the same and other subjects in general terms,” Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1959); (2) a certain sentence from diento which, according to the defendant, anticipates the possibility of a different decision after the enactment of section 893.13(8); and (3) the second district’s rejection of a state argument in O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), that section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase negates the application of a different provision of section 893.13....
...citation omitted). We maintain that position. diento’s Reasoning Cilento’s reasoning ultimately refutes the defendant’s argument. In Cilento , the state charged a medical doctor with selling or delivering a controlled substance in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)’s predecessor, section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...lone.... ” Id. In a motion to transfer the case from circuit court to county court, the defendant contended that the information effectively charged no more than the misdemeanor crime of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance under then-section 893.13(2), now numbered as section 893.13(7)(a)l....
...The defendant later changed his plea to nolo contendere, but reserved his right to appeal the circuit court’s ruling. Id. On direct appeal to our supreme court, the supreme court affirmed. Id. at 666 . In reaching its decision, the supreme court stated: Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975), which defines “prohibited acts” under the controlled substances law, does not explicitly cover the conduct of a medical doctor who issues a prescription for a controlled substance outside the course of his professional practice. Cilento, 377 So.2d at 665-66 . The defendant relies on the supreme court’s above-quoted statement for the argument that, after the legislature added subsection 893.13(8) to section 893.13 in 2002, the statute “could not be clearer in specifically defining a crime and its punishment for prescriptions when unlawfully provided by practitioners.” *631 We disagree with this argument. While Cilento perhaps foreshadowed the legislature’s later creation of section 893.13(8), the coincidence of such a temporal relationship does not mean that the legislature intended to preclude the state from charging a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(l)(c)....
...The fact that certain conduct might violate more than one criminal provision does not necessarily render it invalid. Fayerweather v. State, 332 So.2d 21 (Fla.1976). [The de fendant], as a physician, is capable of violating either or both of the provisions, 893.13(1) and 893.13(2)....
...To apply diento’s reasoning here, it is a function of the particular facts of this case, and the state’s discretion, see Fayerweather, 332 So.2d at 22 , whether the defendant’s conduct amounts to: • the first-degree felony of selling or delivering a controlled substance under section 893.135(l)(c), or • the second- or third-degree felony of illicit conduct by a prescribing practitioner under section 893.13(8), or • the misdemeanor of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance in violation of chapter 893 under section 893.13(7)(a)....
...Thus, the defendant’s status as a prescribing practitioner does not in some way immunize him from any of the charges. See id. O’Hara’s Reasoning O’Hara’s reasoning also ultimately refutes the defendant’s argument. In O’Hara , the defendant (a layperson) was convicted of trafficking in hydroco-done under section 893.135(l)(c). 964 So.2d at 840 . He appealed the trial court’s denial of his requested jury instruction that it was not illegal to possess hydroco-done if it had been prescribed. Id. The defendant argued, in pertinent part, that the first part of section 893.135’s introductory phrase of “Except as authorized in this chapter ... and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13” made available to him the prescription defense provided in section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2004), which prohibits simple possession of a controlled substance. Id. at 840-41 (emphasis added). Section 893.13(6), in pertinent part, provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practi- *632 timer while acting in the course of his or her professional practice .... § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). The state contended that the second part of section 893.135’s introductory-phrase “Except as authorized in this chapter ... and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13 ” precluded any reliance on section 893.13(6)’s prescription defense in trafficking cases....
...ting to the same subject matter together in order to harmonize them and to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Whenever possible, we must give full force to all statutory provisions. Applying these principles here, it is obvious that sections 893.13 and 893.135 are part of a statutory scheme addressing the possession of controlled substances, with the latter statute imposing more severe penalties for possessing larger, “trafficking,” amounts of the drugs.... [[Image here]] [The legislative] history discloses that [section 893.135’s introductory phrase] was placed in the statute to address a narrow concern: that offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs might be prosecuted instead for simple possession under section 893.13, and thus they would be permitted to escape the more severe penalties mandated under the trafficking statute. Nothing in the enactment itself or in the history of the bills that resulted in the new law suggests that the Legislature intended or even contemplated the expansive reading advocated by the State, such that the exceptions or defenses in section 893.13 having nothing to do with penalties also would be excluded from the trafficking statute. Id. at 843-44 (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). The second district’s reasoning emphasized above favors the state here. Unlike O’Hara , this case has nothing to do with the exceptions or defenses in section 893.13, and has everything to do with the different penalties under sections 893.13(8) and 893.135(l)(c). Thus, just as our sister court concluded that section 893.135’s introductory phrase operates to prevent offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs from being prosecuted for simple possession under section 893.13, we conclude that section 893.135’s introductory phrase also operates to allow the state the discretion to prosecute prescribing practitioners under the second- or third-degree felony penalties of section 893.13(8) or the more severe penalties of a first-degree felony with mandatory minimum sentences and fines under section 893.135(l)(c)....
Copy

Luther v. State, 68 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13415, 2011 WL 3754670

...Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant, Anthony Luther, was convicted pursuant to section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2009), of selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility....
Copy

Turner v. State, 16 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12515, 2009 WL 2601622

...As the State concedes, however, there is merit in the argument regarding the HFO sentence. Not only did the court's oral pronouncement of sentence fail to include an HFO designation, but the offense for which sentence was imposed was possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2003). A violation of section 893.13 cannot provide the basis for the imposition of an HFO sentence....
Copy

Mackle Vincent Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2012 WL 3640966, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17992

...an issue the Florida Supreme Court first addressed in Chicone v. State.4 Reviewing a conviction for cocaine possession, the court held that the State was required to prove that the 1 FLA. STAT. § 893.101. 2 Id. § 893.13(1)(a), (6)(a). 3 Id. § 893.13(1)-(2). 4 684 So....
Copy

Philius v. State, 936 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2366431

...rida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant's three-year mandatory minimum sentence is not authorized by the statute which he was convicted of violating, we reverse. The appellant was charged with and pled no contest to violating section 893.13(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Section 893.13(6)(c) states that any person who violates the statute is guilty of a first-degree felony, punishable as provided in sections 775.082, 775.083, or 775.084. However, none of these statutes provide for a three-year mandatory minimum. The trial court based the denial of the appellant's motion on the fact that section 893.135(1)(k)2.a., Florida Statutes, authorizes the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum for possession of more than 10 grams of MDMA. However, the appellant was clearly charged and convicted of violating section 893.13(6)(c), which does not contain a mandatory minimum....
...The fact that the appellant specifically agreed to this sentence in his plea agreement does not prevent him from raising this claim in a postconviction motion. Darling v. State, 886 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Because the appellant's three-year mandatory minimum sentence is unauthorized by section 893.13(6)(c), Florida Statutes, the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion....
Copy

Reyes v. McCray, 879 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1781349

...s corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const. On January 6, 2004, the Petitioner, Richard Reyes, was arrested on one count of unlawful cultivation of marijuana and one count of unlawful possession of marijuana, both in violation of § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Morrow v. State, 547 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC DAUKSCH, Judge. Appellant requests in his motion that we certify the question decided in this appeal. We oblige by certifying to the Supreme *1237 Court of Florida the following question of great public importance. IS SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? See also State v....
Copy

Williams v. State, 85 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6188, 2012 WL 1364999

...peal issued opinions concluding that the prescription defense extended to an individual authorized by the prescription holder to temporarily possess the medications on the holder's behalf. See State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription....
...1st DCA 2010) (prescription defense available to wife who asserted that she was holding her husband's pills on his behalf). REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial. ORFINGER, C.J. and PALMER, J., concur. NOTES [1] The trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced Williams to time served. [2] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Edison v. State, 954 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1159716

...Warren, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard E. MacDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. FULMER, Chief Judge. Alonzo Edison was charged with one count of trafficking in cocaine by possession pursuant to sections 893.135(1)(b) and 777.011, Florida Statutes (2003), and one count of possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; ecstasy) pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a)....
Copy

Turner v. State, 901 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 856921

...apparently after the dye pack activated, and he also had time to hide the money in the console of the vehicle. AFFIRMED. PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 812.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. [2] § 843.01, Fla. Stat. [3] § 843.025, Fla. Stat. [4] § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

CP v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1030

...Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. C.P. was adjudicated delinquent based on separate findings of possessing, § 893.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985), and possessing with intent to sell, § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Henderson v. State, 952 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1094148

...Because the proximity enhancement in the version of the statute in effect at the time of Henderson's offense was only 200 feet, we reverse Henderson's conviction and remand with instructions to enter a judgment for possession with intent to sell. In the information, the State cited section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and alleged that the offense occurred on June 18, 2003....
Copy

Ashley v. State, 925 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 941752

...The trial court agreed that the evidence was insufficient to show that Ashley possessed any of the drugs or paraphernalia found during the search. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to show that Ashley had "maintained a drug dwelling," in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)5, Florida Statutes (2003), which makes it unlawful for any person: To keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, *1120 boat, aircraft, or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter. Section 893.13(7)(a)5, Florida Statutes (2003), has been interpreted by the Second District Court of Appeal in State v....
...SAWAYA, J., dissenting. Having been convicted of numerous drug offenses, Irvin Ashley was placed on community control, which he was subsequently found to have violated by committing the new criminal offense of keeping or maintaining a drug-house in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2003)....
...The majority concedes that the trial court correctly held that Ashley knew his house had been resorted to by people using controlled substances. The only reason the majority concludes that Ashley did not keep or maintain a drug-house in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...oat, aircraft, or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter. § 893.13(7)(a)5., Fla....
...Because no other Florida court has analyzed the factors that may be considered in making this determination, it is very helpful to turn for guidance to decisions rendered by courts in other jurisdictions that have made that analysis based on statutory provisions similar to section 893.13(7)(a)5. Congress has enacted a federal statute very similar to section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...ains premises utilized as a place for illegal drug use. In State v. Kelly, 120 N.C.App. 821, 463 S.E.2d 812 (1995), for example, the court affirmed a conviction for maintaining a dwelling house for drugs under a statute almost identical to Florida's section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...The factors established by a preponderance of the evidence presented in the instant case certainly support the trial court's conclusion that it was more probable than not that Ashley did "keep or maintain" a residence for illegal drug use in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)5. Specifically, I believe that the factor of control of the premises, which I have previously indicated is a necessary factor to prove maintenance under section 893.13(7)(a)5., is clearly established....
...In addition to control, other factors sufficiently established by the evidence include duration, acquisition of the premises as a residence, continuity, and a degree of supervision of those allowed by Ashley to stay on the premises. In my view, these factors clearly show that Ashley kept or maintained the premises under section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...nflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the trial court's decision, I believe that there is substantial competent evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ashley did violate section 893.13(7)(a)5....
...cretion in revoking Ashley's community control. I conclude my discussion with the following observation: having discussed numerous cases from other jurisdictions that considered the issue we now consider based on statutory provisions very similar to section 893.13(7)(a)5., I find it quite remarkable that, based on less evidence or evidence markedly similar to that considered by the trial court in the instant case, those courts held that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did keep or maintain the premises as a drug-house....
...In doing so, we must be mindful of the conditions under which crackhouse operations are often conducted."). [2] In the same footnote, the majority asserts that there is no evidence that Ashley maintained his residence for the purposes of drug sales. But evidence of drug sales is not necessary to establish a violation of section 893.13(7)(a)5....
Copy

The State of Florida v. Tyquane Williams (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...Because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law, we deny the petition. Background Williams was charged in a seven-count information with three counts for sale of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a church in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)(2), Florida Statutes; three counts for sale of a controlled substance on public housing property in violation of section 893.13(1)(f)(1), Florida Statutes; and one count for trafficking phenethylamine over ten grams in violation of section 893.135(1)(k)(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The charges stem from incidents that occurred on July 2, 2019, July 15, 2019, and August 7, 2019, when the City of Miami Police Department sent a confidential informant to purchase illegal narcotics from Williams....
Copy

Davis v. State, 96 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14896, 2012 WL 3870859

...ch the trial court denied. We affirm the order denying relief and note that claim four involves a challenge pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011). The Florida Supreme Court has since held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutional....
Copy

Miller v. State, 588 So. 2d 607 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9089, 1991 WL 170836

...Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for two counts of delivery of cannabis. We find no merit in the points he raises in the appeal. We affirm his conviction and sentence. We do, however, find that the judgment erroneously lists appellant’s convictions as second degree felonies. As provided in section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), appellant is guilty of felonies in the third degree....
Copy

Freeman v. State, 549 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2097, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5006, 1989 WL 103992

BARFIELD, Judge. Maurice Freeman appeals his judgment and sentence for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, each a violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), asserting that multiple punishments for the two crimes, arising out of a single drug transaction involving the same controlled substance, violated double jeopardy principles....
Copy

Thomas Andrew Vana, Jr. v. State of Florida (Fla. 6th DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 6th District Court of Appeal

...beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Bush, 295 So. 3d at 200 (quoting Rogers v. State, 285 So. 3d 872, 891 (Fla. 2019)). A person may not sell controlled substances “within 1,000 feet of real property comprising a state, county, or municipal park . . . .” § 893.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). Because Vana sold heroin and fentanyl, his proximity to a specific type of park had significant consequences; it doubled his potential maximum sentence for each sale. See id. § 893.13(1)(a)1, (c)1.; § 893.03(1)(a)63., Fla....
Copy

Tianga v. State, 146 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13734, 2014 WL 4385758

...2d DCA 2003). Among other elements, the State must prove that the defendant has at least two prior convictions and that the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced and one of the two prior felony convictions are not convictions pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to purchase or possession....
Copy

State v. Mackey, 964 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13869, 2007 WL 2482607

...Mackey to three concurrent terms of three years of probation. On the delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school charge, the State argues that the trial court was required to sentence Ms. Mackey to a mandatory minimum term of at least three years in prison, pursuant to section 893.13(l)(c)(l), Florida Statutes (2004). We agree and therefore reverse that sentence. Under section 893.13(l)(c)(l), a defendant who commits the offense of delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school “must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” See State v. Crews, 884 So.2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing an eighteen-month prison sentence for delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school because section 893.13(l)(c)(l) requires a minimum term of three years in prison and no appli *773 cable statute authorizes the court to suspend or defer that sentence)....
...Mackey the opportunity to file a motion to withdraw her plea. If she chooses not to file such a motion or if she fails to succeed on such a motion, the trial court shall resentence Ms. Mackey for this offense to a prison term consistent with the mandatory minimum provision of section 893.13(l)(c)(l)....
Copy

United States v. Murray, 625 F. App'x 955 (11th Cir. 2015).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...years or more is prescribed by law.” 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(A). Under Florida law, possession of cocaine with intent to sell is a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. See Fla. Stat. §§ 775.082 (3)(d), 893.03(2)(a), 893.13(l)(a). A conviction under § 893.13(1), which includes possession with intent to sell cocaine, qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under § 924(e)(2)(A)....
Copy

Ledea v. State, 121 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14152, 2013 WL 4746559

...e therefore affirm the convictions. *90 The ten-year habitual offender sentence imposed for possession of cocaine, however, is an illegal sentence. See § 775.084(l)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2010) (precluding habitual offender sentencing for violations of section 893.13, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance); Coleman v....
Copy

Boatwright v. State, 566 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6599, 1990 WL 126323

...The transaction'which led to appellant’s arrest was his exchange of a quantity of marijuana for a piece of crack cocaine supplied by an undercover law enforcement officer. No money was involved in the transaction. Appellant argues that because no money was paid, there was no “purchase” and therefore no criminal act. Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, proscribes, except under certain circumstances, the “purchase” by any person of such a controlled substance as that involved here....
Copy

United States v. Michael Anthony Conage (11th Cir. 2020).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

prior Florida convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a), which
Copy

Hayes v. State, 19 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14835, 2009 WL 3103616

Confession of Error COPE, J. Dwayne Hayes appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, § 893.135(l)(b)l.a., Fla. Stat. (2006), and possession of the same cocaine with intent to sell it. Id. § 893.13(l)(a)l....
Copy

O.A. v. State, 146 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13685, 2014 WL 4344546

...The clerk’s order noted that an opinion would follow. O.A. was arrested on May 27, 2014, and charged with two third-degree felonies: (i) robbery by sudden snatching (section 812.131, Florida Statutes (2014)), and, (ii) possession of a controlled substance without a prescription (section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2014))....
Copy

O.A. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...The clerk’s order noted that an opinion would follow. O.A. was arrested on May 27, 2014, and charged with two third-degree felonies: (i) robbery by sudden snatching (section 812.131, Florida Statutes (2014)), and, (ii) possession of a controlled substance without a prescription (section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2014)). A juvenile’s detention status is determined by the trial court’s scoring of the juvenile based on, among other factors, the nature of the offense(s) charged....
Copy

Palmer v. State, 743 So. 2d 80 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11838, 1999 WL 683131

sentence for a felony which is a violation of section 893.13 “relating to the purchase or the possession
Copy

Hill v. State, 623 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9923, 1993 WL 383525

...n 1,000 feet of a school. However, we vacate the appellant’s conviction for delivery of cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing facility. See State v. Thomas, 616 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding the term “public housing facility” in section 893.13(1)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), unconstitutionally vague)....
Copy

State v. Keuhn, 98 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4475343, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16467

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Gary A. Keuhn based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

McLeod v. State, 549 So. 2d 255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2266, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5294, 1989 WL 111531

...ation of marijuana and possession of marijuana. We find McLeod’s appeal without merit, but remand to the trial court for the entry of a corrected judgment. The defendant was charged in count II of the information with possession of marijuana under section 893.13(l)(f), a third degree felony and section 893.13(l)(g), a misdemeanor. The judgment reads that the defendant was convicted of “section 893.13(l)(f), a misdemeanor.” This was evidently a typographical error. There is no evidence in the record of the amount of marijuana the defendant had in his possession. The judgment should read “section 893.13(l)(g), a misdemeanor.” AFFIRMED and REMANDED for entry of a corrected judgment....
Copy

State v. Jones, 772 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12299, 2000 WL 1395927

...ears’ drug offender probation pursuant to section 948.01(13), Florida *41 Statutes (Supp.1998), without giving written reasons for the downward departure sentence. We reverse and remand. Jones was charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998)....
...ourt to impose probation in lieu of a term of imprisonment as required or authorized by the sentencing guidelines when a defendant has been convicted of certain enumerated offenses involving controlled substances which are third degree felonies. See § 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), and (6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Hall v. State, 685 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10220, 1995 WL 567366

charged, convicted, and sentenced pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e)l., Florida Statutes (1991), a first-degree
Copy

Cardi v. State, 685 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10177, 1995 WL 566511

trial court entered the conviction solely under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993). The judgment should
Copy

Stephenson v. State, 557 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5275, 1989 WL 198617

including his challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). State v. Burch
Copy

Gagger v. State, 699 So. 2d 347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10840, 1997 WL 594124

prior felony convictions is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the purchase
Copy

State v. Williams, 549 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2262, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5225, 1989 WL 110935

...sentence of twenty-one days with credit for time served and adjudication withheld. The plea, entered over the state’s objection, involved the sale and delivery of cocaine to an undercover agent within one thousand feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Bridges v. State, 604 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10061, 1992 WL 235337

...w imposition of straight probation. Therefore, appellant’s sentences for counts 1 and 3 are reversed and remanded for imposition of legal sentences. *944 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Tereso, 585 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1991 WL 186982

the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 893.-13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (Supp. II 1990). See
Copy

Ruff v. State, 990 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4330183

...of cocaine. Appellee, State of Florida, concedes and we agree that appellant's sentence for possession of cocaine should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. Appellant was charged by Information with two counts of trafficking in oxycodone under section 893.135(1)(c)1.b, Florida Statutes (2003), one count of delivering cocaine under section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2003), and one count of possession of cocaine under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003)....
...for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment, as provided in paragraph (4)(a), if it finds that: .... 3. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the *705 two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance. In Coleman v. State, 927 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the court held: "Section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2003), precludes sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to purchase or possession of a controlled substance." Therefore, pursuant to section 775.084(1)(a)3....
Copy

Barber v. State, 699 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10713, 1997 WL 587038

habitual offender if the felony is “a violation of Section 893.13 relating to *326the purchase or possession
Copy

Ousley v. State, 679 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9907, 1996 WL 536492

counts of sale of cocaine, a crime pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The trial court adjudicated
Copy

Adderly v. State, 605 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1992).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 600, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1625, 1992 WL 236199

...R CURIAM. We review State v. Adderly, 596 So.2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the court subsequently certified the following question as being of great public importance: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? State v....
Copy

Brown v. Wainwright, 337 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15477

MORROW, RUSSELL 0., Associate Judge. The defendant-appellant was charged with possession of controlled substances, phencyclidine and cannabis, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(e)....
...On March 21, 1974, a search warrant, pursuant to an affidavit for search warrant, was issued, to search the premises known as the “ABC Lounge” in Orlando. The warrant alleged that the premises were under the control of Clifford Barrett and that cocaine was being kept on the premises in violation of Florida Statute 893.13....
...be connected with the illegal activity set forth in the affidavit on which said warrant was issued, to-wit: “that there is now being kept on said premises and curtilage certain controlled substance, to-wit; cocaine in violation of Florida Statutes 893.13.” We find error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence....
Copy

State of Florida v. Anthony Levern Waiters (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Waiters admitted having a broken crack pipe stem and a piece of crack rock in his pocket. Thereafter, the State charged Mr. Waiters with possession of a 1 §§ 397.301-.998, Fla. Stat. (2020). 3 controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. §§ 893.13(6)(a), .147(1), Fla....
...at he or she is experiencing, an alcohol-related or a drug- related overdose and is in need of medical assistance may not be arrested, charged, prosecuted, or penalized for a violation of [section] 893.147(1) or [section] 893.13(6), excluding paragraph (c), if the evidence for such offense was obtained as a result of the person's seeking medical assistance. 7 The parties invite us to discern the meaning of "as a result of." Id....
Copy

Black v. State, 642 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9161, 1994 WL 515295

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge. Leonard Black pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his dispositive motion to suppress....
Copy

Baron Greenwade v. State of Florida, 147 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...t he be resentenced accordingly. Therefore, we reverse Appellant’s conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine in an amount more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams, reduce the conviction to possession of a controlled substance, see section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), and remand to the trial court for resentencing. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR....
Copy

Hamon v. State, 744 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12557, 1999 WL 743603

1000 feet of a secondary school pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes. *1067The supreme court approved
Copy

State v. Jackson, 98 So. 3d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4221024, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15871

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Ronald Jackson based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. Kelly, 98 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4221169, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15866

CASANUEVA, Judge. The State appeals the dismissal of an information filed against Kipp Karson Kelly charging him with possession of a controlled substance. The trial court dismissed the information based on its finding that section . 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v....
Copy

State v. Walls, 585 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9339, 1991 WL 183837

LEHAN, Judge. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the information against defendant, Darryl Walls, for sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 909 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13861, 2005 WL 2105371

...s motion was deemed denied due to the trial court’s inaction. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of seventy-two months for a violation of section 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (2000), and a violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2002)....
Copy

State v. Miles, 97 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4094823, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15632

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charges against Nicole Marie Miles for two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). The circuit court *334 dismissed the charges based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State of Florida v. Marcia Lynne Sills (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...The state charged the defendant with racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering in violation of sections 895.03(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (2012), and trafficking in oxycodone and conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone in violation of sections 893.135(1)(c)1.a.,b....
...enses, not elements of the offenses, because section 893.05(1) is separate from the delivery and trafficking statutes.”); King v. State, 336 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“It is clear that s. 893.05 is an exception to the prohibitions of s. 893.13 and does not constitute a separate violation of Chapter 893.”). Although “[a] defense or an exception to an offense need not be negatived in the information charging the offense,” King, 336 So. 2d at 1202, it remains reasonable for the state to seek to negate a section 893.05(1) defense or exception when prosecuting a practitioner for a violation of section 893.13....
Copy

State v. Hill, 585 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9557, 1991 WL 181502

PER CURIAM. Because, as the appellee concedes, the trial court lacked the authority to deviate from the three year minimum mandatory sentence required by section 893.13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (1989); State v....
Copy

West v. State, 456 So. 2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1962, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14985

...n. We find no error and affirm. The amended information charged West with possession of a controlled substance, “to wit: four (4) aluminum foil packets containing a white powder mixture of Heroin, Cocaine, or a combination thereof, in violation of Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes.” West’s argument that the amended information failed to give notice of the specific offense charged is unpersuasive....
Copy

Parks v. State, 437 So. 2d 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21696

BOARDMAN, Judge. Appellant Lyle Joseph Parks contends that possession of cannabis 1 under Section 893.13(l)(e), 2 Florida Statutes (1981), is not a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver under Section 893.-13(l)(a)2....
...Furthermore, we need not address appellant’s entrapment argument. Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with directions to discharge appellant. OTT, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . A controlled substance described in Section 893.03(l)(c)3, Florida Statutes (1981). . Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1981) provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a val...
...n the course of his professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony of the third degree .... . Section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1981) provides: (l)(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....
...A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(l)(c), (2)(c), (3), or (4) is guilty of a felony of the third degree.... . See In re Florida Standard Jury Instruction in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594 (Fla.1981). . The judgment erroneously identified possession as a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2. It is clear, however, that the jury found appellant guilty of violating section 893.13(l)(e)....
...is with intent to sell or deliver, we cannot help but note that a cognizable distinction exists between these crimes which is not reflected . in their respective penalties. The state can achieve the same result by charging and proving a violation of section 893.13(l)(e) as by charging and proving a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2, without undertaking the burden of establishing the offender’s intent to market his contraband....
...Yet an individual possessing a large quantity of cannabis with the almost certain intent of distributing it poses a greater threat to society than does his counterpart who possesses slightly more than 20 grams, the minimum amount required for prosecution under section 893.13(l)(e)....
Copy

G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15243

...Accordingly, we REVERSE the trial court’s order and REMAND for sentencing in accordance with the DJJ’s recommendation or a sentence that is justified by the record with stated reasons. See, e.g., S.S.M., 814 So.2d at 1235 . THOMPSON, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(c)2„ Fla. Stat (2004). . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Badgett v. State, 97 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4033591, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15449

PER CURIAM. Patrick M. Badgett, Senior, appeals the judgment and sentence imposed for Count I, trafficking in illegal drugs in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)l., Florida Statutes (2010), and Count VI, possession of methadone in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)....
...5th DCA 2012) (reversing for new trial where trial court was of the mistaken apparent belief that the prescription defense was only available to the prescription holder and thus did not instruct jury on that defense); State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription....
Copy

Williams v. State, 702 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 559427

(1995) and possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes, based on double jeopardy
Copy

Smith v. State, 623 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9072, 1993 WL 341115

minimum mandatory three year sentence pursuant to section 893.13(1)(e)(1) rather than section 893.135(1)(b)
Copy

State v. Keith, 584 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9262, 1991 WL 174508

*654 CONFESSION OF ERROR PER CURIAM. Based upon the appellee’s appropriate confession of error, the mitigated sentence under review is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing in conformity with Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statute (Supp.1990)....
Copy

State v. Alvarino, 585 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, 1991 WL 175840

...State, 579 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1991), including the tangential reference to section 531.41(8), Florida Statutes (1989), creates or suggests a requirement that a measuring device used to determine that a drug sale took place less than one thousand feet from a school under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) must be previously calibrated or otherwise independently tested for accuracy....
Copy

State v. Rodriguez, 585 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8925

...the controlling and indistinguishable authority of Padron v. State, 580 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The defendants pled guilty in the trial court to the offense of unlawful sale or purchase of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three (3) calendar years imprisonment....
Copy

Westerman v. State, 175 So. 3d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14991, 2015 WL 5883501

...State, 95 So.3d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse the' defendant’s judgment and sentence on the possession conviction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(á), Fla. Stat. (2014). . § 893.135(1)©, Fla....
Copy

State v. Kalogeras, 587 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9965, 1991 WL 200127

PER CURIAM. We reverse and remand for resentencing. The trial court erred by withholding the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence required by section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...ithhold imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence and place defendant on probation after adjudication of guilt. This was because the statute unambiguously mandated that the sentence “shall” be imposed upon “conviction.” In the instant case, section 893.13(1)(e)(l) states that anyone who “violates” the paragraph of the statute relating to the purchase of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school “shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” Appellee admitted to violating the statute by pleading nolo contendere....
Copy

State v. Jenkins, 591 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9953, 1991 WL 199949

...Liataud, 587 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, the court certified the following question to the supreme court in State v. Scates, 585 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991): MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISION OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? We also certify the same question here....
Copy

United States v. James Innocent (11th Cir. 2020).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...led: 10/08/2020 Page: 4 of 17 At trial, Innocent stipulated that he had been convicted of a felony offense before June 11, 2018. His four felony convictions, stemming from three separate prosecutions, were cocaine possession, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1), § 775.082(3)(d); cocaine and marijuana possession, id. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)–(2), § 775.082(3)(d)–(e); and two convictions for possessing cocaine with intent to sell, id. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)....
...or serious drug crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Jones had three such convictions: one for aggravated assault with a firearm, Fla. Stat. § 784.021; one for resisting an officer with violence, id. § 843.01; and one for selling drugs at a school, id. § 893.13(1)(c). During his sentencing hearing, Jones conceded that all three convictions counted as qualifying offenses under the Act....
Copy

United States v. Elijah Hasan Jones (11th Cir. 2020).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...led: 10/08/2020 Page: 4 of 17 At trial, Innocent stipulated that he had been convicted of a felony offense before June 11, 2018. His four felony convictions, stemming from three separate prosecutions, were cocaine possession, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1), § 775.082(3)(d); cocaine and marijuana possession, id. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)–(2), § 775.082(3)(d)–(e); and two convictions for possessing cocaine with intent to sell, id. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)....
...or serious drug crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Jones had three such convictions: one for aggravated assault with a firearm, Fla. Stat. § 784.021; one for resisting an officer with violence, id. § 843.01; and one for selling drugs at a school, id. § 893.13(1)(c). During his sentencing hearing, Jones conceded that all three convictions counted as qualifying offenses under the Act....
Copy

Walthour v. State, 700 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11182, 1997 WL 614275

may be imposed in the proper instance under section 893.13(8)(b), Florida Statutes. As this cost was not
Copy

T.N. v. Portesy, 932 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16037, 2005 WL 2467061

...On January 5, 2005, after reviewing the petition, this court issued an unpublished order granting the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus and ordering T.N. to be immediately released from his detention. This opinion now follows. T.N. was originally charged with possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2004)....
Copy

T.K. v. State, 605 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10475, 1992 WL 260858

PER CURIAM. The appellant was convicted of a third degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Delgado v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...found him guilty of the lesser included offense of principal to felony battery causing great bodily harm (count two), see §§ 777.011, 784.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2015), and conspiracy to deliver less than twenty grams of cannabis (count four), see §§ 777.04(3), 893.13(3), Fla....
...After severing Delgado's and Lenker's cases for trial, the State nolle prossed counts one and three against Delgado and announced that it would proceed to trial on count two as charged and on count four on the lesser included offense of conspiring to deliver less than twenty grams of cannabis. See §§ 777.04(3), 893.13(3). -2- The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, established the following: Devin Creech suffers from a debilitating medical condition that he eases by smoking cannabis....
...rincipal to felony battery causing great bodily -4- harm, see §§ 777.011, 784.041(1), and on count four (as amended) of conspiracy to deliver less than twenty grams of cannabis, see §§ 777.04(3), 893.13(3). Post verdict, Delgado unsuccessfully renewed his motion for judgments of acquittal....
...d for Lenker to commit the offense and did some act that assisted Lenker to actually commit it. See 1The written judgment and sentence incorrectly identifies count four as charging conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, see § 893.13(1)(a)(2), which was the original charge, rather than conspiracy to deliver less than twenty grams of cannabis, see § 893.13(3), which was the amended charge....
Copy

State v. Moore, 98 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4748159, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16876

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Joshua Moore for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). The circuit court dismissed the charge based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. Hagedorn, 98 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4748152, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17011

PER CURIAM. The State appeals from an order granting Ricky Allen Hagedorn’s motion to dismiss the narcotics charges against him on the ground that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), is unconstitutional....
Copy

Davis v. State, 643 So. 2d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9482, 1994 WL 534777

manufacture, or deliver within 1000 feet of a school. § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla.Stat. (1989). The appellant was sentenced
Copy

Johnson v. State, 549 So. 2d 799 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2350, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5452, 1989 WL 114258

...ery of a controlled substance. We find Johnson’s appeal without merit, but remand to the trial court for the entry of a corrected judgment. Johnson was charged in count I of the information with unlawful sale or delivery of a controlled substance, section 893.13(l)(a)(l), which is a second degree felony. However, the written judgment stated that he was convicted of section “893.13(l)(a)(l), F-3.” The judgment should have read “893.13(l)(a)(l), F-2.” Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is affirmed but the case is remanded for correction of the scrivener’s error in the written judgment....
Copy

Jones v. State, 550 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2336, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5503, 1989 WL 117125

ZEHMER, Judge. Defendant Darius Jones appeals his dual convictions for sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of the same subsection, which offenses arose out of the same transaction occurring on April 2, 1987 in Columbia County, Florida....
Copy

United States v. Jimmy Lightsey (11th Cir. 2024).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Apr 17, 2024

...§ 851, attaching documents es- tablishing that Lightsey had, in relevant part, a 2000 Florida convic- tion for sale of cocaine and a 2009 Florida conviction for sale or delivery of cocaine, both in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a)....
...ically qualified as a “violent felony” under ACCA.1 Likewise, the probation officer stated that Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. 154 (2020), held that sale of cocaine and sale or delivery of cocaine un- der Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) are both “serious drug offenses” under ACCA....
Copy

Donson v. State, 99 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18954, 2012 WL 5350154

PER CURIAM. The appellant has filed a rule 3.850 motion raising six claims. We affirm the lower court’s denial of all of the claims, including claim six, in which the appellant argues that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v....
Copy

Denson v. State, 588 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10852, 1991 WL 219444

...ourt is permitted to consider whether departure is appropriate and, if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989). Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)1, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Herbert Reese v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Reese with delivery of cannabis within 1000 feet of a school (count 1), delivery of cannabis (count 2), and possession of cannabis (count 3). The State nolle prossed count 2 and proceeded to trial on the remaining counts. As to count 1, the amended information alleged that Mr. Reese violated section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2017), by "knowingly and unlawfully deliver[ing] or attempt[ing] to deliver ....
...1st DCA 2005) ("The law is well settled in Florida that where an offense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information." (citations omitted)). Section 893.13(1)(c) provides that "a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of ....
...1981) ("The language of the information tracked the language of the - 10 - statute and sufficiently alleged the existence of a criminal 'enterprise.' The information was sufficient . . . ."). However, the State gets this argument backwards. An individual can violate section 893.13(1)(c)(2) in any of several ways; i.e., sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver....
...So when the State claims that the language in the amended information "tracks" the statute, it represents that the statutory language is verbatim repeated in the charging document. This is not so. The amended information clearly charged Mr. Reese solely with violating section 893.13(1)(c)(2) through his alleged delivery or attempted delivery of cannabis. Wright, 975 So. 2d 498, highlights this point. The State charged Ms. Wright with trafficking in cocaine under section 893.135(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...defective that it will not support a judgment of conviction when the indictment references a specific section of the criminal code which sufficiently details all the elements of the offense."). Although the amended information charged Mr. Reese with a violation of section 893.13(1)(c)(2), it specifically excluded any of the alternative theories enumerated in the statute....
...an agency relationship." § 893.02(6). Thus, an individual must possess the drugs to deliver them. The converse is not necessarily true; an individual need not deliver drugs in order to be found guilty of possession. The State charged Mr. Reese with violating section 893.13(1)(c)(2) solely by virtue of delivering or attempting to deliver cannabis. Yet, the inclusion of evidence, argument, and a jury instruction that delivery can be accomplished through possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver exposed Mr....
Copy

State of Florida v. Jamaal Pickersgill (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...State presented competent substantial evidence to support every element of the crimes charged. To convict Pickersgill of possession of THC, the State had to prove that he actually or constructively possessed some amount of the controlled substance. § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...the State was required to show that 1) Pickersgill possessed with intent to sell or deliver a certain substance; 2) the substance was cannabis; and 3) Pickersgill had knowledge of the presence of the substance. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim) 25.2; § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Bernadin, 591 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10761, 1991 WL 218338

PER CURIAM. The state appeals from a sentence imposed below the guidelines range and a minimum mandatory sentence imposed by statute. We reverse. Appellee was charged with purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat....
...Jenkins, 584 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); and State v. Baumgardner, 587 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We again certify the following question to be of great public importance: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISION OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? REVERSED and QUESTION CERTIFIED....
Copy

State v. Mann, 98 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4660850, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16737

...The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of its prosecution of Christopher Mann for possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and petit theft. The trial court had dismissed the case upon a finding that the relevant statute, section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), was unconstitutional....
Copy

Acton v. State, 457 So. 2d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2119, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15285

...*541 Appellant now contends that the court was not authorized to levy the $50,000 fine against him. The problem arises from the fact that in charging appellant in count I with delivery of more than twenty-eight grams of cocaine, the information referred to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983), rather than section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1983). Conviction of delivering cocaine under section 893.13 carries a maximum fine of $10,000, whereas a conviction of trafficking through the delivery of more than twenty-eight grams of cocaine under section 893.135(l)(b)l. requires a mandatory fine of $50,000. Under the circumstances of this case, we view the reference to section 893.13 in count I of the information as surplusage because the appellant was not misled to his prejudice....
...Youngker v. State, 215 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). The record reflects that it was evident to all concerned that appellant had been charged with trafficking under count I. The plea bargain was clearly premised upon the sentencing requirements of section 893.135, and the prosecutor laid a factual basis under that statute. Appellant’s lawyer was even debating the mandatory aspect of the imposition of the $50,000 fine as specified in section 893.135(l)(b)l....
Copy

Robinson v. State, 742 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14320, 1999 WL 979181

...Cotton, 728 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), review granted, 737 So.2d 551 (Fla.1999), which conflicts with our opinion in Speed . We therefore certify the question to the supreme court. COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1997), a second degree felony. . § 893.13(6), Fla....
Copy

Jackson v. State, 606 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11486, 1992 WL 312769

PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony....
Copy

Branch v. State, 626 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1993).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 570, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1728, 1993 WL 433729

judge may refer a defendant convicted under section 893.13(1)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (1989), to a drug
Copy

Nesmith v. State, 608 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11305, 1992 WL 312749

...arrest that uncovered the cocaine. Although she testified at the suppression hearing, she had not seen the appellant commit the misdemeanor. On October 3,1991, the appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress....
Copy

Thames v. State, 230 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...the jury instructions that were used, but never objected to, at his trial. Finding no fundamental error' under the facts of this case, we deny his petition for the reasons that follow. I. The State charged Mr. Thames with (1) sale of cannabis under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2014); (2) actual or constructive possession of a conveyance used for the trafficking, sale,, or manufacture of controlled substances in violation of section §93.1351, and (3) solicitation to purchase cannabis under sections 777.04/ Florida Statutes (2014),'and 893:13....
...efendant had knowledge that the place, structure or part thereof, trailer or conveyance would be used for the purpose of sale or distribution of a controlled substance. Let us state at the outset, the first element in this instruction was erroneous. Section 893.1351(2) reads: “A person may not knowingly'■ be in actual or constructive possession of any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer, or other conveyance with the knowledge that the place, structure, or part thereof, trailer, or con...
...ly used, both at the charge conference and at the time the instructions were read to the jury. In his petition now before us, Mr. Thames claims this instruction was fundamentally erroneous because it lacked the first element of knowledge required by section 893.1351(2)....
...With that in mind, then, we turn to the substantive' point of Mr, Thames’ argument. The jury instruction utilized in Mr. Thames’ trial failed to indicate that Mr. Thames had to “knowingly” be in actual or constructive possession of the conveyance to be found guilty of violating section 893.1351(2)....
...e knowledge element of his offense. It is difficult for us to fathom how that could have mattered, though. Mr. Thames does not contend that the jury’s instructions as to what constituted his possession of this particular conveyance for purposes of section 893.1351(2) were in any way inaccurate....
...Thames did not testify at his trial, but his expired registration of what appeared to be the same vehicle was admitted into evidence at the trial. . The instructions did not define actual or constructive possession. Although the information. charged Mr, Thames with the crime defined in section 893.1351(2), and The jrny instruction , lists elements of that offense, the written jury instructions refér to section 893.13(7)(a)(5), which prohibits a person from keeping or maintaining “any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, pr other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in viola...
...Here, however, it is simply impossible to imagine any circumstance under which it could be said that Mr. Thames inadvertently or unknowingly possessed the Chevrolet Caprice he was leaning against when he conducted this drug transaction. . Our colleague recognizes that section 893.1351(2)’s inclusion of the word "knowingly” imparts “a distinct mental element” into this criminal offense....
Copy

Jones v. State, 885 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15675, 2004 WL 2375612

...ed its discretion in denying his request, made prior to the imposition of sentence, that he be permitted to withdraw his previously entered no contest plea. We reverse. Appellant was charged by information with possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003) and resisting an officer without violence, in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2003)....
Copy

State v. R.D.H., 779 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13723

...y because the trial court failed to suspend R.D.H.’s driver’s license, contrary to the requirements of section 322.056(1), Florida Statutes (1997). R.D.H. entered a no contest plea to the delinquent act of possession of marijuana, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and an enumerated offense under section 322.056(1)....
Copy

Murgia v. State, 661 So. 2d 962 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11323, 1995 WL 623512

PER CURIAM. In 1992, the defendant entered into a negotiated plea for the possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony, § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Ackerman, 100 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18485, 2012 WL 5233548

...The State appeals the dismissal of certain criminal charges filed against Talvon Ackerman, Caleb Helm, William Ickes, Vernon Johnson, Timothy Kelleher, and Rose Mayes. Each of these defendants had at least one charge filed against them for delivery, sale, and/or possession of controlled substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes, 1 and each of these defendants sought dismissal of those charges based on the alleged facial unconstitutionality of section 893.13....
...The trial court dismissed the charges at issue based on its finding that section *180 893.18 was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v....
...Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), we reverse the order of dismissal and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the charges as to each of these defendants. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. SILBERMAN, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur. . Defendant Johnson was charged under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), while the remaining defendants were charged under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. Lee, 100 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18484, 2012 WL 5233550

VILLANTI, Judge. The State appeals the dismissal of certain criminal charges filed against Willie Lee, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod. Each of these defendants had a charge filed against them for possession of controlled substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), and each of these defendants sought dismissal of those charges based on the alleged facial unconstitutionality of section 893.13. The trial court dismissed the charges at issue based on its finding that section 893.13 was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v....
Copy

State v. Katsaitis, 100 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18480, 2012 WL 5233533

PER CURIAM. The State appeals from an order granting Jessica L. Katsaitis’s motion to dismiss the narcotics charges against her on the ground that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), is unconstitutional....
Copy

Green v. State, 459 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2246, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15608

CAMPBELL, Judge. Appellant, Jessie Barry Green, appeals his conviction for sale of a controlled sub *352 stance (cannabis) in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...WHETHER THE TRIAL* COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GIVE APPELLANT’S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION? At trial, appellant requested a jury instruction on delivery of less than twenty grams of cannabis without consideration, a violation of section 893.13(l)(f). The trial court denied the requested instruction on the ground that delivery of cannabis without consideration is not a lesser included offense of the crime of sale of cannabis. The trial court was correct. Section 893.13(l)(a) provides that it is unlawful to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance. Section 893.13(l)(a)2 makes those offenses a felony of the third degree when the controlled substance is cannabis....
...He was not charged in the alternative language of the statute with sale, manufacture, delivery or possession. Appellant requested an instruction on delivery of cannabis without consideration, a misdemeanor of the first degree. That crime, created by section 893.13(l)(f), however, would be a lesser included offense only if the primary offense charged was delivery of more than twenty grams of cannabis....
Copy

Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11290, 1992 WL 308630

PER CURIAM. Milton Jones appeals a judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1987), and driving with a suspended or revoked license in violation of section 322.34(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Johnny Duriel Harris v. State, 149 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17155, 2014 WL 5343550

...Defendant Johnny Duriel Harris (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine (“Count One”), and possession of cannabis (“Count Two”), both with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a park, community center, or recreational facility pursuant to section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2011)....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1991). Trial judges are required to instruct the jury regarding a necessary lesser included offense. State v. Wimberly, 498 So. 2d 929, 933 (Fla. 1986). Because Defendant could not have committed the charged offenses under section 893.13(1)(c) in Counts One and Two without committing the lesser included offenses of possession with intent to sell or deliver, they are considered necessary lesser included offenses. A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and...
...the lesser included offense). In examining the elements of these charged offenses, it is clear that the crimes alleged in the charging document sufficiently alleged the lesser included offenses of possession of controlled substances with intent to sell under section 893.13(1)(a), and the evidence at trial supports convictions under that statute....
...intent to sell on both Count One and Count Two is proper pursuant to section 924.34. We hereby reverse Defendant’s convictions on Count One and Count Two, but remand this case back to the trial court with instructions to enter judgments of conviction against the Defendant under section 893.13(1)(a) for possession of cocaine with intent to sell on Count One, and for possession of cannabis with intent to sell on Count Two, as well as for resentencing on these convictions. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded w...
Copy

Mathis v. State, 21 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15810, 2009 WL 3365638

...of a child care facility, as found by the jury, may not stand because the court fundamentally erred in omitting that part of the standard jury instruction which concerned the necessity that any possession be "with the intent to sell" the contraband. § 893.13(1)(c)(1), Fla....
Copy

Nguyen v. United States, 545 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2008).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21840, 2008 WL 4631719

...He was held in jail for about five hours. When he was released at the end of the day, Dr. Nguyen still did not know why he had been arrested. Dr. Nguyen later learned that he had been arrested for six counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (l)(a), which makes it a crime to deliver a controlled substance “[ejxcept as authorized by this chapter.” That chapter of the Florida Code authorizes medical doctors to dispense or prescribe controlled substances “in good faith and in the course of his or her professional practice only.” Fla....
...Nguyen had delivered Lortab and Valium, which contain the controlled substances hydrocodone and diazepam, “to a confidential source by use of a written order for said drug[s] not issued in good faith and in the course of his professional practice, contrary to section 893.13(l)(a)(2).” The not in good faith and not in medical practice elements were more specifically described in the affidavit underlying the warrant....
Copy

State v. Lewinson, 644 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 575450

...a warrant, specifically arguing that the contraband was not growing in a constitutionally protected area. We agree and reverse the trial court's order. The state charged Loris Eudora Lewinson with one count of manufacturing cannabis in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and one count of possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

T.J. v. State, 743 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13695

...We do not recede from this requirement. But see C.F. v. State, 603 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Affirmed. PATTERSON, C.J., CAMPBELL, THREADGILL, PARKER, BLUE, FULMER, WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, GREEN, CASANUEVA, SALCINES, STRINGER, and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . See § 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

McDuffie v. State, 135 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 5076095, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18269

...Here, the offense charged in the amended information contained an element that the offense charged in the original information did not contain, ie., that the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of a school. See Cox v. State, 764 So.2d 711, 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing conviction under section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes, because “the state failed to prove an essential element of the charged offense, i.e., that the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of a school”)....
...r delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school) neces *321 sarily includes a finding of guilt as to the original charge (sale or delivery of cocaine) because all of the elements of the latter offense are contained in the former offense. Compare § 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2006) with § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla....
Copy

State v. Harper, 100 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18277, 2012 WL 5076155

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Tammie Harper for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2011). The circuit court dismissed the charge based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. Hall, 100 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 5076157, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18279, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2458

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Buddy Hall based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. Hoffman, 100 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18271, 2012 WL 5076156

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Daniel George Hoffman based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

Allen v. State, 98 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 5076177, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18161

...listed on the judgment as a second-degree felony when it is a third-degree felony. The appellant is correct, and in response to this Court’s order issued pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the state concedes error. See § 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1997); Grandison v....
Copy

Spry v. State, 912 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2655054

...cocaine. They found the cocaine approximately 540 feet from a child care facility. Mr. Spry contends that the State failed to prove that he intended to possess or sell the cocaine within 1000 feet of the child care facility. We reject this argument. Section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes *386 (2002), makes it unlawful to sell, manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance in, on, or within 1000 feet of a child care facility....
...Read as a whole, the statute establishes that the place of the possession with intent to sell controls, not the defendant's subjective intent concerning the ultimate place of sale. Id.; see also Jennings v. State, 667 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 682 So.2d 144 (Fla.1996) (finding that section 893.13(1)(c) merely increases gravity of offense and severity of penalty)....
Copy

State v. Reyes, 650 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 13105, 1994 WL 760581

...The state challenges the trial court’s order granting the appellees’ joint motion to suppress. We find that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress and, accordingly, reverse. The appellees were charged with one count of possession of cannabis contrary to section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), and the appellees filed joint motions to suppress the evidence....
Copy

State v. Jimenez, 100 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18058, 2012 WL 4900842

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Jesus Jimenez based *165 on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. Altomonte, 100 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18060, 2012 WL 4900845

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Robert Altomonte based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. James, 100 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18055, 2012 WL 4900844

KHOUZAM, Judge. The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of its prosecution of Kieron W. James for possession of a controlled substance. The trial court had dismissed the charge upon a finding that the relevant statute, section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), was unconstitutional....
Copy

Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 641335

...cerning this issue: whether a defendant can be convicted and punished for possession with intent to sell, and for simple possession of the same quantity of cannabis. It appears that the Paccione *191 defendant was charged with violations of sections 893.13(1)(a)2. and 893.13(6)(a), which are the violations charged in the instant case. [5] Based on Pacione, we reverse the conviction and sentence for a violation of section 893.13(6)(a)....
...The judgment mistakenly designates the crime a second degree felony. The judgment should be corrected to show that the crime is a third degree felony. We find no merit in the other points raised on appeal. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 893.13(1)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1995). [2] § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1995). [3] § 893.13(7)(a)5., Fla.Stat. (1995). [4] § 893.147(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1995). [5] We note that, to prove a violation of section 893. 13(6)(a), the state must prove both possession and the felony amount of marijuana. See Purifoy v. State, 359 So.2d 446 (Fla.1978); § 893.13(6)(b). In contrast, in cases involving controlled substances other than cannabis, a violation of section 893.13(6) can be proved without a showing of an amount....
Copy

James Mobley v. State, 263 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. LAMBERT, J. James Mobley was convicted after trial of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a public park, in violation of section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2014)....
...Mobley asserts that when the Legislature intends to prohibit a defendant from being eligible for gain-time during the service of a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, it uses explicit language to that effect, see Mastay v. McDonough, 928 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and that section 893.13(1)(c)1., under which he was sentenced, lacks this limiting language....
...cutive clemency, or conditional medical release under [section] 947.149, prior to serving the minimum sentence” to the statute under which the defendant was sentenced that does not have similar language). Here, Mobley was sentenced under section 893.13(1)(c)1....
Copy

Smith v. State, 123 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5629443, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16434

...Smith argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish his constructive possession of the controlled substance and paraphernalia. Smith also raises a challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010)....
...of his jointly-occupied vehicle because there was no evidence of dominion and control aside from the driver’s mere proximity to the pipe); Cruz v. State, 744 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (same). As for Smith’s constitutionality challenge to section 893.13, this argument has been rejected by the supreme court in State v....
Copy

Jones v. State, 718 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13164, 1998 WL 727306

...es for the 1990-91 offenses are vacated, and this cause is remanded for resentencing. AFFIRMED, in part; Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for Resentencing. GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . § 800.04(1), Fla. Stat. . § 784.021(l)(a), Fla. Stat. . § 893.13(l)(a)2, Fla. Stat. . § 893.13CI)(a)2, Fla....
Copy

Blatch v. State, 719 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12904, 1998 WL 712891

REMANDED. GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997) prohibits "any person
Copy

State v. Mays, 99 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4856404, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17652

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Kenneth Mays for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2010). The circuit court dismissed the charge based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section *570 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. Hagedorn, 99 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4856401, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17837

PER CURIAM. We reverse the circuit court’s November 30, 2011, order dismissing count 1 of the information against Appellee for possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. James, 99 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4856402, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17838

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Donald Earl James based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

Pappas v. State, 567 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7808, 1990 WL 152107

into the state of Florida, a violation of section 893.-13(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1985), and conspiring
Copy

United States v. Michael Ray Bishop (11th Cir. 2019).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Hydromorphone is a Schedule II controlled substance. 3 The PSI identified Bishop’s prior Florida conviction for conspiring to sell, manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), as a predicate controlled substance offense. 5 Case: 17-15473 Date Filed: 10/11/2019 Page: 6 of 22 three syringes....
...base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3) because his prior Florida conviction for 19 Case: 17-15473 Date Filed: 10/11/2019 Page: 20 of 22 drug conspiracy under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) is not a predicate “controlled substance offense” under the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines....
...with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” Id. at § 4B1.2(b). Of relevance here, Florida criminalizes the sale, manufacture, or delivery of a controlled substance, or the possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance. Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a). We have previously held that a conviction under Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) is a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines....
...See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014). 20 Case: 17-15473 Date Filed: 10/11/2019 Page: 21 of 22 Bishop argues that his prior Florida conviction under Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) cannot qualify as a predicate “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines because it lacks a mens rea element with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance....
Copy

Hammett v. State, 827 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14612, 2002 WL 31269537

...Singletary, 595 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992)(habeas corpus is not a second appeal and cannot be used to, litigate or relitigate issues which could or should have been raised on direct appeal). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and PALMER, JJ„ concur. . § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat . § 794.01 l(4)(a), Fla. Stat. . § 800.04(4), Fla. Stat. . § 893.13(4)(b), Fla....
Copy

Wojnar v. City of Tarpon Springs ex rel. Tarpon Springs Police Dep't, 684 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10460, 1996 WL 582566

...These items contained a total of twenty-seven grams of marijuana. Mr. Woj-nar pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana, a third-degree felony punishable by imprisonment of no more than five years and by a fine of no more than $5,000.00. See §§ 893.13(1)©, 775.082, 775.083, Fla....
...We find this sufficient to meet the instrumentality test. The second prong of our inquiry is “proportionality.” Mr. Wojnar was charged with possession of an amount of marijuana just exceeding the amount that raises the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. Compare § 893.13(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991) with § 893.13(l)(g), Fla. Stat. (1991)(possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis is a first degree misdemeanor). While this crime is serious, it is not as grave as other drug offenses, for example, .sale of cocaine. See § 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla....
Copy

Williams v. State, 661 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10673, 1995 WL 594958

this offense is a felony of the third degree. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). We remand to the trial
Copy

State v. Winter, 549 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2375, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5602, 1989 WL 118640

appellant’s objection, pled guilty to a violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). Appellant correctly
Copy

Sumpter v. State, 531 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2316, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4487, 1988 WL 103861

PER CURIAM. The Order of Revocation of Community Control is affirmed. The five-and-one-half-year prison term imposed upon the defendant on Count II, which charges the offense of possession of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1985), exceeds the maximum sentence which may be imposed for this third-degree felony and is accordingly reduced to five years....
Copy

State v. James, 101 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4800194, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17380

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Donald E. James for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). The circuit court dismissed the charge based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. Ammirato, 101 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4800186, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17379

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Alex Ammirato for one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). The circuit court dismissed the charge based on its conclusion that section 893.13 was facially unconstitutional. We reverse based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), which held that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional, and we remand for further proceedings....
Copy

State v. Lansing, 101 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4800195, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17427

PER CURIAM. We reverse the circuit court’s December 6, 2011, order dismissing count 2 of the information against Appellee for possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings....
Copy

Harrison v. State, 883 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14455, 2004 WL 2191756

...nder sentencing under the guidelines in effect at the time. 2 Harrison is correct in this assertion, and he has presented a facially sufficient ground for relief. See *896 Virgil v. State, 2004 WL 2008501 , 884 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept.10, 2004). Section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), “provides that if the quantity of the cocaine involved is 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams, the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.” Virgil, 884 So.2d at 374 . Furthermore, “[p]ursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), a defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual offender for violating section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” Id....
Copy

David Gee, Sheriff of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Grantland, 203 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a) and possession of paraphernalia in violation
Copy

State v. Miller, 100 So. 3d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19566, 2012 WL 5458096

...Shannon Miller was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of paraphernalia. The circuit court granted Miller’s motion to dismiss the two possession of a controlled substance charges on the basis that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), was unconstitutional....
Copy

Raulerson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2593, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6302, 1989 WL 135523

...We affirm. All appellants entered pleas of nolo con-tendere, reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the charges against them. These motions alleged that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, the legislation enacting Section 893.13, was unconstitutional as violative of the “one-subject rule” of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. Both the second and fourth district courts of appeal have considered this question and have determined that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, did not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution, and thus Section 893.13 is constitutional....
...1st DCA 1989), affirming the denial of Dame’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute is constitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss herein. We certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Affirmed....
Copy

Christopher Donnell Williams v. State of Florida, 230 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...granted the motion as to this ground. However, as the state candidly concedes on appeal, it does not appear that an order was entered to actually correct the sentence on count I. Possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis is a first-degree misdemeanor. § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Robinson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...years of the date of the conviction of the last prior felony or other qualified offense of which he was convicted,” and the “felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of § 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance”). We affirm for the reasons explained in the trial court’s detailed order....
Copy

Brown v. State, 830 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16150, 2002 WL 31487302

...istance of counsel; however, it is incumbent on the trial judge to examine the defendant to determine whether the waiver of this right is made knowingly and intelligently before allowing the defendant to proceed without the assistance of counsel). . § 893.13(l)(c)l, Fla....
Copy

Pinkney v. State, 682 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11747, 1996 WL 648309

and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).
Copy

A.B. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...support the requisite statutory element that regularly conducted religious services were held at the church building located within 1000 feet of the delivery of the cocaine. The trial court denied the motion, and A.B. now challenges that ruling on appeal. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that "it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver ....
Copy

A.B. v. State, 150 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18193, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2346

...t the requisite statutory element that regularly conducted religious services were held at the church building located within 1000 feet of the delivery of the cocaine. The trial court denied the motion, and A.B. now challenges that ruling on appeal. Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver ......
Copy

Ward v. State, 21 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16561, 2009 WL 3674572

...ior to detaining an individual. State v. Wimberly, 988 So.2d 116, 119-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Ward’s motion to suppress. AFFIRMED. TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur. . § 790.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). . § 893.13(l)(a), Fla....
Copy

Rasbin v. State, 588 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11122, 1991 WL 229793

SCHEB, Judge. The judgment reflects Defendant, Harold Edwin Rasbin, pled guilty to possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Hubbard v. State, 588 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11168, 1991 WL 229787

SCHEB, Judge. Defendant, Arthur Hubbard, entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989)....
Copy

Cook v. State, 700 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12293, 1997 WL 683300

PER CURIAM. The state properly concedes it was error for the trial court to have imposed an habitual felony offender sentence for appellant’s violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995), as such sentencing is impermissible under section 775.084(l)(a)(3)....
Copy

R.W. v. State, 646 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11466, 1994 WL 665417

DANAHY, Judge. The appellant was charged with violating section 893.13(l)(i), Fla.Stat....
...In that regard, we are persuaded by the reasoning of our sister court in Paige v. State, 641 So.2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Faced with exactly the same situation as we have in this case, the Fifth District concluded that possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1991) (now section 893.13(l)(b)), is a necessarily included lesser offense of possession with intent to sell within 200 feet of a public housing facility....
...g cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school). Accordingly, we vacate the appellant’s adjudication and remand with directions that the appellant be adjudicated guilty of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver under section 893.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2756, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6691, 1989 WL 143443

...Remand, however, is not necessary because the trial court sentenced Hamilton within the recommended guidelines range and reversal of the possession conviction does not change the recommended guidelines range. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1987). . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Crum v. State, 664 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12605, 1995 WL 698912

...1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the appellant’s convictions without discussion. However, we find that the trial court erred by imposing certain costs and probation conditions. Appellant pled no contest to one count of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

Perez-Riva v. State, 152 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19369, 2014 WL 6675919

...Perez-Riva also argues that the postconviction court erred in denying his sixth claim, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on double jeopardy grounds to his convictions and sentences for both cultivating (manufacturing) cannabis and trafficking of the same cannabis. 2 See §§ 893.13(l)(a)(2), .135(l)(a), Fla....
...jeopardy); Stacey v. State, 83 So.3d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding convictions for manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine violated double jeopardy) (manufacture includes possession, possession has no separate element)). Section 893.13, the basis for Mr....
...ith 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(l)(c) [cannabis] ... commits a felony of the third degree.... Section 893.135, the basis for the trafficking charge, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: (a) Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, in excess of 25 pounds of cannabis, ......
Copy

June v. State, 131 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20232, 2012 WL 5897616

LEWIS, J. Joseph Burrell June, Appellant, appeals his conviction and five-year sentence for possession of cocaine, in violation of. section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010)....
Copy

State v. In the Interest of M.A.D., 721 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14903

...for trespass after warning. The officer’s search of M.A.D.’s bag yielded the presence of a small amount of marijuana. M.A.D. was thereafter arrested and charged in a petition for delinquency with one count of possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997)....
Copy

State v. Johnson, 627 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11777, 1993 WL 482315

case exceeded the 3 year minimum sentence of section 893.13(l)(e). Unlike in ' McKenzie, the trial court
Copy

Fleming v. State, 82 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18667, 2011 WL 3477056

...Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (2011). Considering the matter en banc, we deny rehearing for the reasons set forth below. In his motion for rehearing en banc, Fleming raised for the first time that the statute under which he was convicted, section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional based on the analysis set forth in Shelton. In Shelton, the district judge found section 893.13 to be unconstitutional because it removed the element of mens rea from drug possession laws, creating a strict liability offense. Id. at 1296-98. The Shelton court held that in order for such an offense to be constitutional, the defendant cannot be subjected to harsh penalties, substantial social stigma, or regulation of inherently innocent conduct, and that section 893.13 does all three....
...Here, this court issued an opinion as to the merits of Fleming's case in Fleming v. State, No. 4D10-972, 2011 WL 3477056 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug.10, 2011). Subsequently, Fleming filed a motion for rehearing en banc, raising for the first time an issue as to the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, under the analysis set forth in Shelton....
Copy

K. T. B. v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Breslow, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. LUCAS, Judge. A juvenile we will refer to as K.T.B. appeals the circuit court's order adjudicating him delinquent and placing him on probation for one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2018)....
...committed a delinquent act, withheld adjudication, and placed him on six months of juvenile probation. K.T.B. now appeals 1Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). -2- the order, arguing that the State failed to establish a corpus delicti of an offense under section 893.13(6)(a).2 "It is a longstanding tenet of common law that a defendant's confession is inadmissible to prove his guilt unless the State separately proves the corpus delicti, i.e., the 'body of the crime.' " J.J.J....
...of the type charged was committed; and (2) that the crime was committed through the criminal agency of another.' " N.G.S., 272 So. 3d at 832 (quoting Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1317 (Fla. 1997)). As K.T.B. points out, under section 893.13(6)(a) the State would need to prove that K.T.B....
...connected that the proof of the corpus delicti and the guilty agency are shown at the same time' " (quoting Spanish v. State, 45 So. 2d 753, 754 (Fla. 1950))). -5- That is plainly not the case here. Section 893.13(6)(a)'s proscriptions do not depend on the identity of the defendant at all....
Copy

Veasey v. State, 682 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12378, 1996 WL 673297

PER CURIAM. The judgment and conviction are affirmed. We remand, however, so that the trial court may correct a scrivener’s error in the judgment, which references section 893.13(l)(a), rather than the correct statute, section 893.13(2)(a)....
Copy

Frasier v. State, 683 So. 2d 623 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12430, 1996 WL 673347

discretion to impose such costs pursuant to section 893.13(8)(a), Florida Statutes. However, the costs
Copy

Carlton v. State, 662 So. 2d 445 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12296, 1995 WL 689521

possession of a controlled substance under Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), Perez v. State, 647
Copy

Shariff David Bula Lopez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 909 F.3d 388 (11th Cir. 2018).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...deliver, and thus his prior conviction did not constitute a CIMT. B. IJ’s Order In a written order, the IJ found that Bula Lopez’s Florida conviction was for possession with intent to deliver, not simple possession. Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) criminalizes possession with intent to deliver, whereas Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(a) criminalizes simple possession. The IJ noted that DHS bears the burden of proving Bula Lopez’s inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence....
...conviction. The language of the guilty plea form, plea hearing transcript, sentencing documents, and arrest warrant affidavit all described his offense as possession with intent to deliver. However, one document—the information— referred to § 893.13(6)(a), although it also described the offense as possession with intent to deliver....
...The IJ therefore found “that the preponderance of the evidence 3 Case: 17-15179 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 4 of 19 supports the conclusion that [Bula Lopez] was convicted under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), and not Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a).” Having determined that Bula Lopez’s prior conviction was for possession with intent to deliver Flunitrazepam under § 893.13(1)(a), the IJ then determined that his conviction qualified as a CIMT under the INA and sustained that charge of removability....
...Bula Lopez also argued that the IJ erred in sustaining the CIMT charge because Flunitrazepam was not a federally 4 Case: 17-15179 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 5 of 19 controlled substance, and his offense, whether under § 893.13(6)(a) or § 893.13(1)(a), lacked the requisite “evil intent” mens rea requirement....
...The BIA concluded, however, that “this misstatement [was] not material” because the record provided clear and convincing 5 Case: 17-15179 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 6 of 19 evidence that Bula Lopez was convicted under § 893.13(1)(a) for possession with intent to deliver Flunitrazepam. Next, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Bula Lopez’s conviction was a CIMT....
...We address each issue in turn. III. STATUTE OF CONVICTION As a preliminary matter, we must address whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination that Bula Lopez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), rather than simple possession under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a)....
...assertion that DHS failed to prove his statute of conviction by sufficient evidence. See Garces, 611 F.3d at 1343; Adefemi, 358 F.3d at 833. We have no trouble concluding, on this record, that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Bula Lopez was convicted under § 893.13(1)(a) (possession with intent to deliver), and not § 893.13(6)(a) (simple possession). Though the information does cite § 893.13(6)(a), it twice refers to Bula Lopez’s offense as “possession with intent to deliver flunitrazepam.” And aside from this one citation, no other document in the record indicates that Bula Lopez’s conviction was for simple possession....
...to del.,” (3) “poss/sell/deliv flunitrazepam,” and (4) “poss w/ intent to deliver— flunitrazepam.” In short, reasonable, substantial evidence supports a finding that Bula Lopez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver under § 893.13(1)(a), and the single reference in the information to § 893.13(6)(a) does not compel reversal....
...Federal law thus prohibits any controlled-substance delivery outside of lawful medical or scientific purposes. Id. § 841(a)(1). 18 Case: 17-15179 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 19 of 19 Stat. § 893.13(1)(a).6 So Bula Lopez violated the state equivalent of a federal law prohibiting distribution of a Schedule IV substance, a crime for which he could have been imprisoned for over a year....
...uch relief. VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss in part and deny in part Bula Lopez’s petition for review. PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 6 Section 893.13 clarifies that delivery of a controlled substance for legitimate medical or scientific purposes is not illegal. Fla. Stat. § 893.13(9). Bula Lopez’s conviction therefore necessarily means Bula Lopez was convicted for possessing with intent to deliver a controlled substance outside of legitimate medical or scientific purposes. Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), (9). 7 We note that Bula Lopez’s only challenge to the BIA’s aggravated felony determination is his contention that Flunitrazepam is not a controlled substance. He does not raise an argument based on Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013), apparently because his 1997 Florida conviction occurred before the Florida legislature amended the mens rea requirement for § 893.13 offenses in 2002....
Copy

State v. Lindberg, 100 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19022, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2579

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the dismissal of the charge against Justin Jason Lindberg for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). The charge was dismissed based upon the circuit court’s conclusion that section 893.13 is unconstitutional....
Copy

State v. Astemborski, 100 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19101, 2012 WL 5373497

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Dennis Patrick Astem-borski based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

Harris v. State, 72 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17371, 2011 WL 5169968

...cocaine had been deemed insufficient to show intent to sell in other reported cases. Id. More recently, in Valentin , the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a publicly owned park in violation of section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes....
...at 680 . Accordingly, we explained: “Not only was the evidence insufficient to show an intent to sell generally, nothing would show that [the defendant] had an intent to sell within the park as required by the statute.” Id. (emphasis added); see also § 893.13(l)(e), Fla....
Copy

Davis v. State, 550 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2544, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6108, 1989 WL 129794

...within the recommended guideline range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); Branton v. State, 548 So.2d 882 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). REVERSED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED; and REMANDED. COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Lanier v. State, 74 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18408, 2011 WL 5598326

...Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. COHEN, J. Stephen Lanier was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), as well as resisting an officer without violence....
Copy

State v. Williams, 759 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14719, 1998 WL 796626

STEVENSON, J. Appellee, James Williams, pled guilty to possession of cocaine pursuant to sections 893.03(2)(a)4 and 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...Section 948.01(13), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes “drug offender probation” for chronic substance abusers who violate chapter 893, and section 948.034 authorizes probation with drug treatment for drug possession offenders who violate certain enumerated provisions of section 893.13....
Copy

Dautel v. State, 647 So. 2d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11104, 1994 WL 637296

have scored his prior federal conviction under section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1985) and the conspiracy
Copy

K.A.O. v. State, 682 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12118, 1996 WL 661059

resentencing. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13, Fla. Stat. (1995). . § 893.147, Fla. Stat.
Copy

Jeremy E. Lynn Vs State of Florida (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...he lowest permissible sentence on the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet showing six years, to explain why 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 See § 806.13(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2020). 3 See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Goodman v. State, 100 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19746, 2012 WL 5499996

...We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation and resulting sentence. See Sinclair v. State, 995 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“[A] sufficiently experienced officer may opine regarding the identity of crack cocaine.”). Appellant’s additional contention that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), is facially unconstitutional is without merit....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 150 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 WL 12539461

...Appellant, Dana David Johnson, appeals his convictions and sentences for the sale of cocaine and the manufacture of crack cocaine, arguing that the convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because both offenses are violations of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes....
...Exceptions to this rule of construction are: 1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” The term “sell” means “to tran...
...directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis ....”§ 893.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). According to Appellant, the Legislature defined a “single statutory offense” in section 893.13(l)(a)....
...where a sale can occur without possession, possession is not an essential element of sale and is therefore not a lesser-included offense.” Id. at 941 . While Appellant attempts to distinguish McCloud on the basis that the defendant in that case was convicted of crimes under *216 “two distinct subsections” of section 893.13 while he was convicted of two crimes under a single subsection, the certified question included the offense of possession with intent to sell, an offense prohibited by the same subsection of section 893.13 as the sale of a controlled substance....
...State, 61 So.3d 1157,1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we rejected the appellant’s argument that his convictions for selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, both violations of section 893.13(l)(c), violated the prohibition against double jeopardy....
...5th DCA 2004) (citing McCloud in support of its holding that the offenses of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a place of worship, both violations of section 893.13(l)(e)l, did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy); Huey v....
Copy

Dana David Johnson v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Appellant, Dana David Johnson, appeals his convictions and sentences for the sale of cocaine and the manufacture of crack cocaine, arguing that the convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because both offenses are violations of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes....
...Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” The term “sell” means “...
...by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis . . . .” § 893.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). According to Appellant, the Legislature defined a “single statutory offense” in section 893.13(1)(a)....
...where a sale can occur without possession, possession is not an essential element of sale and is therefore not a lesser-included offense.” Id. at 941. While Appellant attempts to distinguish McCloud on the basis that the defendant in that case was convicted of crimes under “two distinct subsections” of section 893.13 while he was convicted of two crimes under a single subsection, the certified question included the offense of possession with intent to sell, an offense prohibited by the same subsection of section 893.13 as the sale of a controlled substance....
...State, 61 So. 3d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we rejected the appellant’s argument that his convictions for selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, both violations of section 893.13(1)(c), violated the prohibition against double jeopardy....
...2d 589, 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing McCloud in support of its holding that the offenses of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a place of worship, both violations of section 893.13(1)(e)1, did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy); Huey v....
Copy

Frazier v. State, 608 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11416, 1992 WL 332657

...We affirm the defendant’s convictions relating to the possession of cocaine and marijuana and reverse the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, being Count Y in Circuit Court Case No. 89-8087. *532 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. . § 893.13(l)(e) & (f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

DeANGULO v. State, 21 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16827, 2009 WL 3763055

...Defendant-appellant Jose DeAngulo appeals an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. I concur in the affirmance on the following analysis. The defendant was charged in count one with sale of cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2007), and in count three, with attempted trafficking in cannabis, in violation of subparagraph 893.135(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2007)....
Copy

Copeland v. State, 720 So. 2d 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14180, 1998 WL 777396

...ithdraw the opinion filed May 12, 1998, and substitute this opinion. Appellant Copeland was convicted and sentenced as a habit *609 ual offender for two counts of possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, first degree felonies pursuant to section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (1995); one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a second degree felony pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1995); and one count of possession of cocaine, a third degree felony pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...laced him on probation for a term of five years consecutive to the prison time. On appeal, appellant challenges his habitual offender treatment. In its answer brief, the State concedes error because “these offenses involved simple possession under § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Glover v. State, 771 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874, 2000 WL 1629313

761 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we hold section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), to be constitutional
Copy

Clark v. State, 551 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2558, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116, 1989 WL 130680

...As in Bennett and Blankenship , we determine the issue of whether chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, violates Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution to be of great public importance and certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Copy

State v. Pena, 247 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...car incident to his arrest and because he smelled marijuana. He discovered a plastic bag containing alprazolam pills. The Defendant was charged with Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture or Deliver a Controlled Substance, in violation of § 893.13(1)(A)(1), Florida Statutes. Pena moved to suppress the statements he made, and the evidence found in his car, following the traffic stop because the stop based on the tag-obstruction statute was illegal. The trial court ag...
Copy

Lundy v. State, 88 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1605323, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7226

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Page v. State, 88 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1605349, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7228

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011), and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Hill v. State, 88 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1605383, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7230

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101....
Copy

Kranites v. Speiser, 560 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3135, 1990 WL 58590

...The proceedings in the county court giving rise to petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy are void and of no effect because they involved a statutorily nonexistent misdemeanor. The charge contained in the information giving rise to this prosecution based upon § 893.13(3)(a) 1, Florida Statutes (1989) constitutes a felony over which the county court has no jurisdiction....
Copy

Dixon v. State, 112 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1891336, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7350

LaROSE, Judge. Tanita Dixon appeals the trial court’s order withholding adjudication and sentencing her to eighteen months of probation after a negotiated plea to possession of alprazolam (Xanax) and amphetamine (Adderall). See §§ 893.13(6)(a); 893.03(4)(a), (2)(c)(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). Ms. Dixon reserved for appeal the disposi-tive denial of her motion to dismiss the alprazolam charge. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). We reject without further discussion Ms. Dixon’s argument that section 893.13 is unconstitutional....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 672 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4745, 1996 WL 230748

judgment form to reflect that the violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), is a third
Copy

Rodriquez v. State, 591 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4150, 1991 WL 81219

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. We grant rehearing and substitute the following in the place of our prior opinion: This appeal challenges the constitutionality of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida *212 Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Wright v. State, 617 So. 2d 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4989, 1993 WL 144085

...The trial court’s order states that no error occurred, and thus no deficiency on counsel’s part, because “penicillin is an amphetamine.” The order cites section 893.-03(2)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (1991), for this premise. This subsection, read in conjunction with section 893.13(l)(a)2, contains a list of “schedule II” drugs whose possession is a third degree felony. While the list includes the term “amphetamine,” it does not mention penicillin. A separate statute, section 893.13(l)(f), does proscribe the possession of controlled substances without a prescription, but we find no indication that the legislature intended to classify penicillin as a controlled substance....
Copy

Wahkeleh v. State, 85 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1559752, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7009

PER CURIAM. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress without further discussion. We decline appellant’s invitation to find section 893.13, Florida Statutes unconstitutional for the reasons ■ expressed in Flagg v....
Copy

McDowell v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 694 F. App'x 692 (11th Cir. 2017).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...ver tested in a laboratory as required by McFadden v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2298 , 192 L.Ed.2d 260 (2015), nor were there any Shepard 1 documents submitted to support, those convictions. Moreover, his convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13 do not qualify as predicate offenses because they did not carry sentences of 10 years or more and the statute lacks a mens rea requirement....
...laim. See id. (“Even if a prisoner’s claim fails under circuit precedent, a motion to vacate remains an adequate and effective remedy for a prisoner to raise the claim....”). And in any event, his argument that his prior drug convictions under § 893.13 do not qualify as predicate offenses is still foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (1) is a serious drug offense); McCarthy v. United States, 135 F.3d 754, 756-58 (11th Cir. 1998) (concluding that a *695 conviction for sale of cocaine under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 (1)(a) carries a 15-year statutory maximum and thus qualifies as a serious drug offense under the ACCA)....
Copy

United States v. Johnson, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2012 WL 1964100

...Johnson’s objection to the Court considering this prior offense must be overruled; it is unnecessary to proceed with a modified categorical analysis. C. Finally, Mr. Johnson objects to his 2004 state conviction of Principal in Sale/Delivery of Cocaine within 1000 Feet of a Church in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, being considered a “serious drug offense” in classifying him an ACC. Section 893.13(l)(e) makes it “unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, or within 1000 feet of [a church].” As explaine...
...is a first degree felony with a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, so there is no controversy as to the requirement of a maximum sentence in excess of 10 years. With regard to the nature of the criminal conduct, it is obvious that violation of section 893.13(l)(e) constitutes a drug offense....
...The definition of “principal” includes those who commit an offense, as well as anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures” such an offense. As a principal, Mr. Johnson was involved, at a minimum, in the “selling” or “delivery” of cocaine, prohibited acts under section 893.13....
...fer or delivery of something to another person in exchange for money or something of value.” § 817.563, Fla. Stat. The meaning of “sell” therefore includes “delivery.” 3 There is no ambiguity as to whether the conviction as a principal of section 893.13(l)(e) qualifies as a serious drug offense for purpose determining whether Mr....
...Johnson’s sentences imposed on June 26, 2000 constitute separate criminal acts for purposes of calculating his criminal history points; 2. Mr. Johnson’s following state court convictions are violent felonies or serious drug offenses as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1): A.Sale/Delivery of Cocaine, section 893.13, Florida Statutes, Volusia County (Florida) Circuit Court, Case No....
...Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer, Volusia County (Florida) Circuit Court, Case No. 03-35686, section 784.07(2)(c), arrested November 2, 2003, convicted and sentenced June 30, 2004; C. Principal in Sale/Delivery of Cocaine within 1000 Feet of a Church, section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, Volusia County (Florida) Circuit Court, Case No....
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-12., 272 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...3d DCA 1999) for discussion on this topic. This instruction was adopted in 2013 [141 So. 3d 132] and amended in 2019. 3.6(n) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS LAWFULLY OBTAINED FROM A PRACTITIONER OR PURSUANT TO A VALID PRESCRIPTION §§ 499.03(1), 893.13(6)(a) Fla....
...ssional practice. Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stat., the burden of going forward with evidence of the “controlled substance was lawfully obtained” defense is upon the defendant. Fla. Stats. 893.10(1), 893.13(6)(a), and 499.03(1) are silent, however, as to the burden of persuasion for the affirmative defense....
...This instruction was adopted in 2013 [141 So. 3d 132] and amended in 2019. 25.2 SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; and§ 893.13(2)(a), Fla....
...a certain substance. 2. The substance was (specific substance alleged). 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3), Fla....
...Give if applicable. If you find that (defendant) is guilty of Delivery of Cannabis, you must then determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. Definitions. Give as applicable. Cannabis. §§§ 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...u should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses - 15 - SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT— 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. *Possession 893.13(6) 25.7 of a Controlled Substance, if Possession With Intent is charged *Delivery of 893.13(3) 25.2 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis, if Delivery of More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments *The crime of Possessi...
...an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [216 So. 3d 497], and 2019. 25.3 SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; § 893.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat.; and § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY,OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF 10 GRAMS — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. - 20 - Sale, purchase, or delivery 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 of controlled substance if and (2)(a) sale, purchase, or delivery is charged *Possession of a controlled 893.13(6) 25.7 substance, if possession is charged Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged Comments *It is...
...2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [216 So. 3d 497], and 2019. 25.4 DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. *Delivery of a Controlled 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Substance Comments *It is unclear if the courts will determine that Possession of a Controlled Substance is a necessarily lesser-included offense of a charge involving Delivery of a Controlled Substance....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [216 So. 3d 497], and 2019. 25.5 BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. Lesser Included Offenses BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE — 893.13(5) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....
...3d 497], and 2019. 25.6 SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS - 25 - § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...he State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] a certain substance. Give as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...and 5 a.m. Real property comprising a public housing facility. § 421.03(12), Fla. Stat. The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute. Community Center. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...- 30 - Lesser Included Offenses SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS — 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. *Sale, Manufacture, or 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Delivery of a controlled substance, if Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery is charged *Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is charged Comments *The crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance is not a necessarily lesser-included crime of Manufacture of a Controlled Substance....
...2d 84], 2000 [765 So. 2d 692], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [216 So. 3d 497], and 2019. - 31 - 25.7(a) TRAFFICKING IN (NAME OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE) § 893.135(1), Fla....
...containing (name of controlled substance)]. 3. The [(name of controlled substance)] [mixture containing (name of controlled substance)] weighed [(insert weight alleged)]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [possess] [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] (a controlled substance enumerated in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.). 2. The defendant actually [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] (a controlled substance enumerated in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in (name of controlled substance), you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: § 893.135(1) Fla....
...A special instruction is needed in those cases. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2019. 25.8 OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9., Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [216 So. 3d 497], and 2019. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...a certain substance. 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cannabis, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.–3., Fla....
...7 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.–2., Fla....
...2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM] [HYDROMORPHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED)] § 893.135(1)(c)1. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The [morphine] [opium] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydromorphone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in (Specific Substance alleged), you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...2d 985], 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.11(a) TRAFFICKING IN HYDROCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)2. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The substance was [hydrocodone] [a mixture containing [hydrocodone]. 3. The [hydrocodone] [mixture containing hydrocodone] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydrocodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Hydrocodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.11(b) TRAFFICKING IN OXYCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)3. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
... 2. The substance was [oxycodone] [a mixture containing [oxycodone]. 3. The [oxycodone] [mixture containing oxycodone] weighed 7 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold oxycodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Oxycodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla....
...The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. - 62 - 3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(d)1.a.–c., Fla....
...09 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(e)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.13(a) TRAFFICKING IN [AMPHETAMINE] [METHAMPHETAMINE] § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...of Amphetamine or Methamphetamine]]. 3. The [amphetamine] [methamphetamine] [a mixture containing (specified substance)] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...1 and 2 below would be given. - 72 - 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [Amphetamine] [Methamphetamine], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(b) TRAFFICKING IN FLUNITRAZEPAM § 893.135(1)(g), Fla....
...The substance was [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam]. 3. The [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold flunitrazepam, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Flunitrazepam, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(g)1., Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(c) TRAFFICKING IN [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-BUTANEDIOL] § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...The substance was [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [or a mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]]. 3. The [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]] weighed 1 kilogram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold GHB, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [GHB] [GBL] [1,4- Butanediol], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(d) TRAFFICKING IN PHENETHYLAMINES (INCLUDES MDMA) § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...mixture containing (specified substance(s))]. 3. The [(specified substance)] [analog, isomer, or mixture containing (specified substance(s))] weighed 10 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold MDMA, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phenethylamines, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(e) TRAFFICKING IN LSD § 893.135(1)(l), Fla....
...into Florida] a certain substance. 2. The substance was [LSD] [a mixture containing LSD]. 3. The [LSD] [mixture containing LSD] weighed 1 gram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold LSD, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...- See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in LSD, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(l)1., Fla....
...proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lesser Included Offenses CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES — 951.22 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. *Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 Firearm - 115 - ...
...The counterfeit-resistant prescription blanks for controlled substances were in the form and content established by the Department of Health pursuant to law. 3. (Defendant) intended [to injure or defraud any person] [to facilitate (insert the alleged violation of s.§ 893.13, Fla....
...Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE GROUNDS OF] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
...Lesser Included Offenses [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(a) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. *Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
Copy

Rose v. State, 89 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1938737, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8638

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which a federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Hall v. State, 579 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4979, 1991 WL 87969

DIAMANTIS, Judge. Defendant appeals from the sentences imposed on him after he was convicted of three offenses of sale or delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1989)....
Copy

Walsh v. State, 579 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4977, 1991 WL 87946

...A like result was reached by our sister courts in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Walker v. State, 567 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Convictions AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED for resentenc-ing. GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . § 893.135(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1989). . §§ 893.135(l)(b)l and 893.135(4), Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat....
Copy

Rozier v. State, 620 So. 2d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4759, 1993 WL 136091

...He was adjudicated guilty of both possession offenses, and placed on concurrent five-year terms of probation, with a special condition that he serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. A concurrent sixty-day sentence was imposed for the trespass misdemeanor. Appellant was charged under section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes, 1 with possession of cocaine, a third degree felony, and under section 951.22, Florida Statutes, 2 *196 with possession of contraband in a county detention facility, also a third degree felony....
...t, the criminal offenses are not separate. 4 The possession of controlled substance charges at issue in this case arose solely in the course of the county jail search. Appellant was charged in one count with simple possession of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(l)(f), a third degree felony; and in the other count, with possession of contraband in a county detention facility, contrary to section 951.22, also a third degree felony. The conduct proscribed by section 893.13(l)(f) is the unauthorized possession of a controlled substance....
...In making this determination, we reject the state’s argument that section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), permits the dual convictions and sentences imposed in this case. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for possession of cocaine, pursuant to section *197 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes, is reversed and the sentence imposed thereon is vacated. SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1989), provides in part: § 893.13(l)(f) — It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner ......
Copy

Delancy v. Tucker, 88 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1912421, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8558

...In 2007, Malcolm Delaney, Jr., the appellant, entered a guilty plea in Bay County to one count of trafficking in cocaine. No direct appeal was taken. Four years after Appellant’s judgment and sentence became final, Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1297-1300 (M.D.Fla.2011), held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional because it eliminates all mens rea from the drug statute....
Copy

Cason v. State, 673 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5483, 1996 WL 279911

...Her appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm Cason’s conviction and sentence, but reverse and remand for correction of a scrivener’s error contained in the judgment. The judgment incorrectly cites section 893.13(l)(a) instead of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

Pinellas v. State, 599 So. 2d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5797, 1992 WL 111380

...judicated an habitual offender in that case and no written reasons for departure were given. In addition the sentence imposed in case 89-199 for possession of cocaine exceeds the statutory maximum penalty of five years for a third degree felony. See § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Green v. State, 732 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6767, 1999 WL 330734

...ay be corrected by way of motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. See Young v. State, 716 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse. All of Green’s prior qualifying felony convictions were for violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), relating to the purchase or possession of controlled substances....
Copy

R.C. v. State, 192 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 3003641, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8106

...a blue pipe. The assistant principal turned these items over to the deputy. II. THE PETITION AND THE HEARING The State filed a delinquency petition charging R.C. as follows: Count One, possession of cannabis (less than twenty grams), a violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2014); and Count Two, possession of drug paraphernalia, a violation of section 893.147(1)....
Copy

R.C. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). -2- The State filed a delinquency petition charging R.C. as follows: Count One, possession of cannabis (less than twenty grams), a violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2014); and Count Two, possession of drug paraphernalia, a violation of section 893.147(1)....
Copy

Cronin v. State, 656 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5641, 1995 WL 313895

unlawful for any person to purchase” cocaine. § 893.13(2)(a)l., Fla.Stat. (1993). Such a purchase is
Copy

Jackson v. State, 817 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7210, 2002 WL 1040569

...We first had unmeasured trial court discretion in sentencing up to the statutory maximum. We tried guidelines and limitations on sentencing discretion. We advanced to increasingly fewer limitations and more sentencing discretion. And now we return to where we began. AFFIRMED. PLEUS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Jefferson v. State, 657 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5593, 1995 WL 312560

...cause section 775.084(l)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that a defendant may be sentenced as a habitual offender so long as “[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of two prior convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” Since count two charged appellant with a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993) relating to the possession of a controlled substance, a habitual offender sentence should not have been imposed....
Copy

Walker v. State, 89 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1861118, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8145

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Marlow v. State, 565 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4084, 1990 WL 69720

ON MOTION TO CORRECT OPINION, CERTIFY, OR WITHDRAW OPINION POLEN, Judge. On June 7, 1989, we issued the following opinion in Marlow v. State, 545 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989): This appeal is taken from a conviction and sentence under section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)....
...Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending disposition of the certified question by the supreme court. In response to appellant’s motion to correct opinion, certify or withdraw opinion, on July 26, 1989, this court acknowledged error in the June 7, 1989, opinion to the extent that it cited section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), as being the one challenged, when in fact, it should be section 893.13(l)(a)....
Copy

Hutto v. State, 173 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745, 2015 WL 2432060

...at a specified time on a specified date. Mr. Hutto signed the citation, thereby pleading guilty or no contest,1 and paid the fine of $513. The State then filed an information charging him with possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), based on the exact same substance he had previously pleaded guilty to possessing....
...See § 775.021(4)(a) (codifying the Blockburger test: "offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial"). Standard jury instruction 25.7 for a violation of section 893.13(6)(a) states as follows: To prove the crime of [possession of a controlled substance], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1....
...We note that while subsection 66-62(a) contains "[f]actors that may be disregarded and/or considered in determining violation," those factors are not elements of the offense; they are methods of proving the offense. As can be seen, both section 893.13(6)(a) and section 66-62 require possession of the synthetic marijuana at issue in this case, but section 66-62 does not require knowledge of the presence of the illicit synthetic drug like section 893.13(6)(a) does....
...he legislature does not intend for separate sentencing for "[o]ffenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute"). Thus, under the Blockburger test, Mr. Hutto cannot also be tried for possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a). Accordingly, the State's prosecution of Mr....
Copy

G.T.L. v. State, 710 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5708, 1998 WL 256709

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Slat. (1995).
Copy

Davis v. State, 599 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, 1992 WL 106943

THREADGILL, Judge. Herbert Davis challenges his two consecutive life sentences as a habitual felony offender for the sale and possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla....
Copy

Marken Leger v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2024).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Nov 9, 2023

...4 Opinion of the Court 22-10971 In 2013 and 2018, Mr. Leger pleaded no contest to two other offenses. Both were the possession of marijuana, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b). The government served Mr....
...cluded that Mr. Leger was removable. As relevant here, the immi- gration judge determined that he was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) because his marijuana possession convic- tions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6) constituted controlled substance USCA11 Case: 22-10971 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 5 of 30 22-10971 Opinion of the Court 5 offenses under the INA....
...Leger again appealed, but a single member of the BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the immigration judge’s deci- sion. The BIA agreed with the immigration judge that Mr. Leger’s convictions for marijuana possession under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6) rendered him removable....
...2 This is Mr. Leger’s petition for review. II We start with the easier of the issues, the effect of Mr. Leger’s convictions for possession of marijuana under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b)....
...minor. See A.R. 5. USCA11 Case: 22-10971 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 7 of 30 22-10971 Opinion of the Court 7 possession of marijuana under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) was not a controlled substance offense as defined under federal law....
...See Said, 28 F.4th at 1332–34. Mr. Leger argues, and the government concedes, that Said controls. See Petitioner’s Br. at 59-62; Respondent’s Br. at 32. We agree. Mr. Leger’s statute of conviction, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b), is overbroad because Fla....
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases - Report No. 2015-03 – Corrected Opinion (Fla. 2016).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...orida, for Petitioner -4- 25.2 SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a), Fla....
...The substance was (specific substance alleged). Give if possession is charged. 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3), Fla....
...If you find that (defendant) is guilty of Delivery of Cannabis, you must then determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. Definitions. Give as applicable. Cannabis. §§§ 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...ou should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). -8- Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT— 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. Possession of 893.13(6) 25.7 a Controlled Substance, if Possession With Intent is charged Delivery of 20 893.13(3) 25.2 Grams or Less of Cannabis if Delivery of More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments If the State alleges the...
...an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-included offense of simple possession. See 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...§ 893.03(1)(c)46.–50., 114.–142., 151.–159, or 166.–16973., in an amount more than 3 grams, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b)., Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.3 SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY,OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF 10 GRAMS — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, purchase, or delivery 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 of controlled substance if and (2)(a) sale, purchase, or delivery is charged Possession of a controlled 893.13(6) 25.7 substance, if possession is charged Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged Comments There is no crime...
... This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.4 DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Delivery of a Controlled 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Substance Comments There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6), Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 15 - 25.5 BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...[her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. - 16 - Lesser Included Offenses BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE — 893.13(5) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....
...o. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.6 SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...t prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] a certain substance. Give as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...and 5 a.m. Real property comprising a public housing facility. § 421.03(12), Fla. Stat. The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute. Community Center. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS — 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Sale, Manufacture, or 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Delivery of a controlled substance, if Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery is charged Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is charged - 22 - Comments In 2014, the legislature passed l...
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2000 [765 So. 2d 692], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.7 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6), Fla....
...must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knew of the presence of a substance. 2. (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 3. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...–159, or 166–16973 Fla. Stat. 4. The [cannabis weighed more than 20 grams] [(insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166– 16973) weighed more than three grams]. § 893.13(6)(c), Fla. Stat. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...- 23 - 893.03(1)(b)] [mixture containing (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] weighed more than 10 grams. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. § § 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...her (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis or Possession of Less than 3 Grams of a Substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166–16973, if the felony level of these substances is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments Fla....
...defense. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.8 OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9., Fla....
...ated prescription defense. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...ructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.–3., Fla....
...and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.–2., Fla....
...2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM][OXYCODONE] [HYDROCODONE] [HYDROMORPHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED)] § 893.135(1)(c)1. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...[mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...ydromorphone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Specific Substance alleged), you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c)1.-2., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 44 - 25.11(a) TRAFFICKING IN HYDROCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)2. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The substance was [hydrocodone] [a mixture containing [hydrocodone]. 3. The [hydrocodone] [mixture containing hydrocodone] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydrocodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Hydrocodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 48 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 49 - 25.11(b) TRAFFICKING IN OXYCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)3. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...2. The substance was [oxycodone] [a mixture containing [oxycodone]. 3. The [oxycodone] [mixture containing oxycodone] weighed 7 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold oxycodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Oxycodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 53 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 54 - 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla....
...The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. 3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
... See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(d)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 59 - 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). - 63 - If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(e)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 64 - 25.13(a) TRAFFICKING IN [AMPHETAMINE] [METHAMPHETAMINE] § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...f Amphetamine or Methamphetamine]]. 3. The [amphetamine] [methamphetamine] [a mixture containing (specified substance)] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methamphetamine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [Amphetamine] [Methamphetamine], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...Stat., includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. 25.13(b) TRAFFICKING IN FLUNITRAZEPAM § 893.135(1)(g), Fla....
...The substance was [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam]. 3. The [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...nd 2 below would be given. - 70 - 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Flunitrazepam, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(g)1., Fla....
...Stat., includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. 25.13(c) TRAFFICKING IN [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-BUTANEDIOL] § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...The substance was [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [or a mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]]. 3. The [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]] weighed 1 kilogram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...elements 1 and 2 below would be given. - 75 - 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [GHB] [GBL] [1,4- Butanediol], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...Stat., includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. 25.13(d) TRAFFICKING IN PHENETHYLAMINES (INCLUDES MDMA) § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...mixture containing (specified substance(s))]. 3. The [(specified substance)] [analog, isomer, or mixture containing (specified substance(s))] weighed 10 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...1 and 2 below would be given. - 80 - 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phenethylamines, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...Stat., includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. 25.13(e) TRAFFICKING IN LSD § 893.135(1)(l), Fla....
...to Florida] a certain substance. 2. The substance was [LSD] [a mixture containing LSD]. 3. The [LSD] [mixture containing LSD] weighed 1 gram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
... sell heroin but actually sold LSD, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in LSD, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(l)1., Fla....
...- 110 - Lesser Included Offenses CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES — 951.22 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 Firearm Carrying a Concealed 790.01(1) 10.1...
... Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE] GROUNDS OF] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
... Lesser Included Offenses [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(a) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
Copy

Ruiz v. State, 488 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1157, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7855

WIGGINTGN, Judge. Appellant appeals his convictions, after trial by jury, of possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and possession of cocaine upon the grounds of a state correctional institution, in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes. We reverse appellant’s conviction under section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and remand for a new trial on the remaining count....
...em since possession of cocaine is included within the elements of the offense of possession of cocaine within the prison. The trial court erred in denying the motion to merge the counts and in effect dismissing the possession of cocaine charge under section 893.13(l)(e)....
...Since the trial judge ruled that the charge under 944.-47(l)(c) would be limited to possession of cocaine in a prison, the charge under 893.-13(l)(e) is a necessarily lesser included offense of that charge. All elements of the simple possession offense under section 893.13 are contained within the elements of the possession of contraband offense within a prison under section 944.47(l)(c)....
Copy

Strickland v. State, 243 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

counts 2 through 6 are third-degree felonies. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). See King v. State ,
Copy

Zachariah Strickland v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Flowers, Judge. May 18, 2018 PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences in this Anders 1 appeal, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect that, in case number 16-CF-2598, count 4 is a first-degree felony. See § 893.135(1)(f)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2016). In case number 17-CF-501, counts 2 through 6 are third-degree felonies. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Stewart v. State, 192 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 2897403, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7575

...The trial court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days, and it is therefore deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Mr. Stewart is correct that the three-year minimum mandatory term is not required by statute to be imposed for this offense. See § 893.13(1)(e), Fla....
Copy

Kinard v. State, 673 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5145, 1996 WL 257326

PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgments and sentences in this Anders 1 appeal with one exception. The assessment of $100 pursuant to section 893.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes, 2 is stricken because the defendant was not sentenced for a drug offense....
...be assessed. Verderosa v. State, 671 So.2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA1996). AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. PETERSON, CJ., and COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . This provision is now found at section 893.13(8)(b), Florida Statutes.
Copy

Whitfield v. State, 620 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5460, 1993 WL 157832

deception, or sub*1028terfuge,” contrary to section 893.13(3)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1985). The offenses
Copy

Alvarez v. State, 88 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1699330, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7620

...3d DCA 2011) (holding “section 89.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional,” and rejecting Shelton v. Secretary , Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Randolph v. State, 578 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4855, 1991 WL 77662

...r the offense of simple possession, Randolph was entitled to an instruction on that charge. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial. Garrison v. State, 530 So.2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l„ Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Caserta, 358 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15574

...The original information contained two counts and read as follows: I. “. . . did then and there unlawfully deliver a controlled substance, to wit: CANNABIS, commonly known as marijuana, in an amount in excess of One-Hundred (100) Pounds, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a);” II....
...“. . . did then and there unlawfully have in their actual or constructive possession a controlled substance, to wit: CANNABIS, commonly referred to as marijuana, in an amount in excess of One-Hundred (100) Pounds, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a)2;” *1145 The requested amended information deleted Count I and amended Count II to read as follows: II. “. . . did then and there unlawfully possess with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, to wit: CANNABIS, commonly known as marijuana, in an amount in excess of One-Hundred (100) Pounds in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a)2;” We cannot see how this amended information would have changed the facts, or the defense, in the case at bar and the appellees would not have been prejudiced thereby....
...In such event technical defects are to be excused unless prejudice is shown. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), Lackos v. State, 339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976). The statute the defendants were charged under was the same [§ 893.13(l)(a)(2) Fla.Stat.1977] 1 and the amendment did not prejudice nor surprise the defendants....
...Accordingly, we are of the view that the amendment to the information should have been permitted under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.1400). REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH. DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . We assume, however, that the original information should have read Fla.Stat. 893.13(l)(a)2 in Count I and Fla.Stat. 893.13(l)(b) in Count II.
Copy

Neeley v. State, 112 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1978841, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7806

LaROSE, Judge. Raymond Neeley appeals his judgment and sentence after pleading to possession of a controlled substance without a prescription. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...2d DCA 2001); Allen v. State, 703 So.2d 1162, 1162-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Mr. Neeley’s “consent” was tainted and involuntary. Therefore, we reverse Mr. Neeley’s conviction. 1 Reversed. VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur. . Mr. Neeley's second argument that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional, is thus moot. We note that the supreme court has held section 893.13 constitutional....
Copy

State v. Brown, 579 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4562, 1991 WL 76525

middle or secondary school in violation of section 893.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). The school
Copy

State v. Brown, 579 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4578, 1991 WL 76526

middle or secondary school in violation of section 893.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989).1 The *376school
Copy

State of Florida v. Strickling, 164 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7030, 2015 WL 2219245

...1 The State of Florida appeals from an order granting Samuel Strickling’s motion to suppress the testimony of two of his treating physicians as well as those physicians’ medical records in this “doctor shopping” case. See § 893.13(7)(a)8, Fla....
...on for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days. § 893.13(7)(a)8, Fla....
...McKnight advised the officers that had he known that Strickling had secured prescriptions from other physicians, he would not have written a prescription for him. Dr. McKnight then completed a sworn statement. Strickling was arrested and subsequently charged with violating section 893.13(7)(a)8 of the Florida Statutes. Approximately four months after being charged, and after making a number of unsuccessful attempts to notify Strickling of its intent to request a subpoena to secure his medical records, the Sta...
Copy

Davis v. State, 617 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5367, 1993 WL 152367

...In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his sentences. In particular, he argues that the trial court imposed a 3-year minimum term for the offense of sale of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school because it believed, erroneously, that such a term was mandatory pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The trial court sentenced appellant to concurrent sentences of five years on each of the possession counts, nine years on the sale count and nine years on the count charging sale within one thousand feet of a school. In addition, believing that the 3-year minimum term contained in section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1991), was mandatory, the trial court imposed such a term for the count charging sale within one thousand feet of a school. Subsequent to the trial court’s imposition of sentence, the supreme court held that, despite its apparently unambiguous language to the contrary, the 3-year minimum term contained in section 893.13(l)(e)l....
Copy

Hassoun v. State, 599 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5253, 1992 WL 98838

PER CURIAM We affirm the defendant’s judgment. Appellant was charged with the unlawful act of purchase of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e) and (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...Hence, his argument that he thought he was purchasing one controlled substance — marijuana— when he actually purchased another controlled substance — cocaine—is immaterial. Knowledge of the particular nature of the controlled substance is not a required element of a charge of purchase under section 893.13(l)(e) or (l)(a)l, Florida Statutes....
Copy

Harris v. State, 655 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5070, 1995 WL 276084

...rges of sale or delivery of cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing facility. The issues presented are (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to advise appellant sufficiently of the consequences of his plea before accepting it; (2) whether section 893.13(1)®, Florida' Statutes, is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) whether the written probation order is illegal because it does not conform to the oral pronouncement....
...efore acceptance of the plea by the trial court. Therefore, even if the Ashley rationale could be applied outside the habitual offender notice context, the decision would not apply in this instance. The second issue concerns the constitutionality of section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)....
...ocess. Id. Since the statute at issue in this case “presents a due process problem,” Brown, 629 So.2d at 843 , appellant’s failure to raise this issue before the trial court does not preclude our review of the constitutional issue. Pursuant to section 893.13(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), sale of cocaine is a second-degree felony. The offense is elevated to a first-degree felony if the sale is accomplished within 200 feet of a public housing facility. § 893.13(l)(i), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990). Under section 893.13(1)(1), the state was required to show that appellant sold or delivered cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing facility. In other words, to establish the commission of the first-degree felony, the state necessarily had to prove that appellant sold or delivered cocaine under section 893.13(l)(a)l. Thus, sale or delivery of cocaine is a necessarily included offense of section 893.13(1). See Paige v. State, 641 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also R.W. v. State, 646 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because section 893.13(1)® has been ruled void for vagueness, we reverse the judgment, and remand for resentencing in accordance with section 924.34, Florida Statutes, which provides: When the appellate court determines that the evidence does not prove the...
...charged, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to enter judgment for the lesser degree of the offense or for the lesser included offense. Upon remand, the trial court is directed to enter a judgment of guilt as to section 893.13(l)(a)l., and to resentence appellant in accordance with the penalties provided for a second-degree felony....
...o place appellant on probation, and properly announces the conditions both orally and in the written order. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a judgment of guilt as to section 893.13(l)(a)l., and to resentence appellant accordingly. ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)0), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Murray v. State, 958 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1373810

...n sentencing documents in accordance with that clarification. See Nobles v. State, 605 So.2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. FULMER, C.J., and ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). [2] See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Williams v. State, 618 So. 2d 323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5234, 1993 WL 152194

dismiss the charge against him on the ground that section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (1991), is unconstitutionally
Copy

Milhouse v. State, 673 So. 2d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4727, 1996 WL 238512

concur. . Tampa, Fla., Code § 4-4 (1992). . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Copy

Baker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1521572, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6879

...Further, because appellant was not given the opportunity to contest the public defender fee, it too was erroneously assessed. See § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). On remand, these costs are to be struck. We otherwise affirm appellant’s conviction, and reject his argument that section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional....
Copy

Daniels v. State, 521 So. 2d 344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 964, 1988 WL 20057

...He first contends that the written judgment entered upon his conviction on count II for possession of a controlled substance should be corrected to reflect that he was adjudicated guilty of violating section 893.-13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1985) — a misdemeanor of the first degree — and not section 893.13(l)(e) — a third-degree felony — as it appears on the written judgment....
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2017-03., 238 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

....1 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2008 [995 So. 2d 489] and amended in 2018. -7- 25.7 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6), Fla....
...nts beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knew of the presence ofpossessed a substance. 2. (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 32. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with possessing more than 20 grams of cannabis. 43. The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. § 893.13(6)(c), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...ct its control by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. §§ 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...her (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis if the felony level of cannabis is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 - 11 - POSSESSION OF MORE THAN TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LISTED IN 893.13(1)(a) OR (1)(b) — 893.13(6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 controlled substance (listed in 893.13(1)(a) or (1)(b)) Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments § 893.21, Fla....
Copy

Terrell v. State, 212 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 922393, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3102

...se, but nonetheless maintains that Appellant was not prejudiced by the given instruction in light of his defense of mis-identification. For that same reason, the State also argues that any error in this case was harmless. We disagree with the State. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes provides that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance ... in, on, or within 1,000 feet of real property comprising a state, county, or municipal park.” § 893.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). As this Court explained in Maestas v. State, “[s]ection 893.13 offenses are general intent crimes” and “[although knowledge of presence is not expressly required by the text of section 893.13, such knowledge has always been required in drug possession cases.” 76 So.3d 991, 994-95 (Fla....
Copy

Aubuchon v. State, 110 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 845517, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3753

...To convict of attempted trafficking by possession, the State had to prove that Aubuchon knowingly attempted to possess four grams or more of oxycodone and that Aubuchon knew the substance was oxycodone, but some act interrupted him from purchasing it. See § 893.135(l)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2010). To convict Aubuchon of possession, the State had to prove that Aubuchon was in actual or constructive possession of some quantum of a controlled substance. See § 893.13(6)....
Copy

Abel v. State, 668 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2237, 1996 WL 98873

...As such, their seizure of the marijuana plants was illegal. See Rickard, 420 So.2d at 307 . We reverse the trial court’s denial of Mrs. Abel’s motion to suppress evidence, and remand with directions to discharge her. Reversed and remanded. LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . § 893.13, Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. James H. Watson, 187 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 916832

...vered at the time of his arrest. Determining that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain Watson, and that Watson abandoned the contraband in question, we reverse. The State charged Watson with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2014)....
Copy

Flagg v. State, 578 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1949, 1991 WL 75529

with intent to deliver is a second degree felony. § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. Section 777.04, Florida Statutes
Copy

Petion v. Bradshaw, 961 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3658, 2007 WL 2108988

...unt of the bond was an abuse of discretion. The petition for habeas corpus is granted and we direct that the $195,000 bond for appellant’s charge for possession of cocaine be reduced to a reasonable bond in accordance with the crime charged. Under section 893.13, Florida Statutes, the degree of the crime of possession of cocaine is determined by the weight of the cocaine possessed at a given time, not the number of containers holding it....
Copy

Batten v. State, 557 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1990 WL 19944

PER CURIAM. Dewey Gerome Batten appeals his conviction on the charge of one count of manufacture of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(a), Fla.Stat. and one count of possession of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Gomez-Rodriqueq v. State, 632 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1994 WL 63286

offense of purchase of cocaine a violation of § 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1991). He was adjudicated
Copy

State v. Nellums, 614 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2421, 1993 WL 55630

ERVIN, Judge. Because the undisputed facts in this case show that appellee, charged with possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), possessed the same in the presence of the owner for the sole purpose of inspecting it, the trial court properly entered an order dismissing the felony charge of possession of cannabis and transferring th...
Copy

Waling Choizilme v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2018).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Waling Choizilme, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal based on his five criminal convictions for drug offenses under Florida Statute § 893.13. After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the BIA did not err in concluding that Choizilme was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his Florida conviction for sale of cocaine, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1), constituted “illicit trafficking” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C....
...All parties agree that Choizilme is removable and not eligible for cancellation of removal if he was convicted of an “aggravated felony.” The dispute in this case involves the definition of “aggravated felony” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), and whether Choizilme’s sale-of-cocaine conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) falls within that definition. 2 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 3 of 34 One of the many crimes that constitutes an “aggravated felo...
...finition: (1) “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance”; and (2) a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). First, this Court held that a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) is not categorically a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in 18 U.S.C....
...trafficking in a controlled substance” portion of § 1101(a)(43)(B). Id. at 1283. Subsequently, in Spaho v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1172, 1176-79 (11th Cir. 2016), this Court held that a conviction for sale of a controlled substance under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) qualified as “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” and, therefore, constituted an aggravated felony under that first portion 1 Under 21 U.S.C....
...permanent resident.2 In 2005, Choizilme was convicted in Florida state court of, inter alia, (1) possession of cocaine, (2) possession of a Schedule IV substance, (3) possession of a Schedule II substance, and (4) possession of hydrocodone, all in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a). In 2006, Choizilme was convicted in Florida state court of selling cocaine, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1). A....
...not an aggravated felony under the INA because it did not qualify as either a “drug trafficking crime” or “illicit trafficking.” In support of his argument, Choizilme cited this Court’s decision in Donawa, which held that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) was not a “drug trafficking crime” but left open the “illicit trafficking” issue....
...cancellation of removal. Choizilme then asserted that he in fact was eligible for cancellation of removal because he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. First, Choizilme explained that, in Donawa, this Court had held that convictions under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(2) do not qualify as “drug trafficking crimes” under the INA because the Florida statute, unlike its federal analogue under § 924(c), does not require that the defendant know the illicit nature of the substance in his possession. Choizilme acknowledged that the BIA’s decision in Matter of L-G-H-, 26 I&N Dec. 365 (BIA 2014), held that a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) 8 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 9 of 34 qualified as an aggravated felony under the broader “illicit trafficking” clause of the INA....
...MATTER OF L-G-H- Because the BIA in Choizilme’s case relied on its precedent in Matter of L-G-H-, we outline what that decision held and why. Like Choizilme, the respondent in Matter of L-G-H- was convicted in 2006 of, among other things, selling cocaine in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1). Matter of L-G-H-, 26 I&N Dec....
...12 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 13 of 34 The respondent appealed to the BIA, which likewise concluded “that the respondent’s conviction for selling cocaine in violation of [Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)] is for an aggravated felony under the illicit trafficking clause of [8 U.S.C....
...[§ 1101(a)(43)(B)].” Id. Describing the Donawa Court’s reasoning, the BIA explained that “because Florida law eliminated knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance as a required element of the offense of drug trafficking under section 893.13(1)(a),” the Florida statute was now broader than its federal counterpart under § 924(c), which requires such knowledge for conviction. Id. (citing Donawa, 735 F.3d at 1281-82). Consequently, the Donawa Court concluded that convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) cannot qualify as aggravated felonies under the “drug trafficking crime” clause of § 1101(a)(43)(B). Id....
...olled substance. See id. Because the record established that the respondent’s Florida cocaine conviction met the first and third of these criteria, the BIA determined that “[t]he remaining issue is whether the respondent’s conviction under [§ 893.13(1)(a)(1)] necessarily involved the ‘unlawful trading or dealing’ in cocaine.” Id....
...knowledge of the substance is still required and an affirmative defense is available to show lack of knowledge of the illegal nature of the substance.” Id. Having concluded that “illicit trafficking” does not include a mens rea requirement, the BIA then considered whether § 893.13(1)(a)(1) “is otherwise a categorical match to the illicit trafficking clause” of the INA. Id. at 371. The BIA reiterated that to qualify as illicit trafficking, “the offense must involve a commercial transaction.” Id. at 371-72. Examining the text of § 893.13(1)(a), the BIA found that the Florida statute “is divisible as to the offenses it prohibits,” explaining that Florida’s standard jury instructions make clear that § 893.13(1)(a) sets out multiple discrete offenses. Id. at 372. Because it concluded that § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible, the BIA applied the modified categorical approach and looked to the records of the respondent’s conviction to determine if his offense categorically qualified as “illicit trafficking.” Id. at 372-73. Those records showed that the respondent was convicted of selling cocaine. Id. at 373. And because the Florida courts have consistently held that “consideration is part of every sale” under § 893.13(1)(a), the BIA concluded that selling cocaine under § 893.13(1)(a) “is categorically an offense involving a commercial transaction and therefore meets the illicit trafficking definition” in the INA....
...18 Page: 18 of 34 V. OUR PRECEDENT IN SPAHO Subsequent to Donawa and Matter of L-G-H-, this Court in Spaho squarely addressed whether a conviction for the sale of a controlled substance in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) is an aggravated felony under the illicit-trafficking portion of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Spaho, 837 F.3d at 1175-76. The petitioner in Spaho argued that the BIA erroneously determined that § 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible and, therefore, erroneously applied the modified categorical approach in determining that his conviction under § 893.13(1)(a)(1) constituted an illicit-trafficking aggravated felony. Id. at 1176. The Spaho Court concluded that “[i]n this case, the Board was correct in upholding the IJ’s determination that § 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible.” Id. at 1177. The Spaho Court explained that, in determining divisibility, we focus primarily on the statutory text. Id. “Section 893.13(1)(a) provides in relevant part that ‘a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.’” Id. (quoting Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)). Examining this plain language, the Spaho Court concluded that the text of § 893.13(1)(a) “delineates six discrete alternative elements: sale, delivery, manufacture, possession with intent to sell, possession with intent to deliver, and possession with intent to manufacture.” Spaho, 837 F.3d at 1177. 18 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 19 of 34 Thus, consistent with the BIA’s analysis in that case, the Spaho Court determined that § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible....
...Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Spaho Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the BIA’s divisibility determination was in conflict with Donawa. Id. at 1178. The Spaho Court acknowledged that Donawa “applied the categorical approach for indivisible statutes in finding that a conviction under § 893.13(1)(a)(2) did not qualify as an aggravated felony under the drug trafficking component of 8 U.S.C....
...But the Spaho Court distinguished Donawa because it “dealt with a different and narrower question than that presented here”—namely, whether the affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance established by Fla. Stat. § 893.101 effectively created two separate offenses under § 893.13(1)(a), one with a mens rea requirement and one without. See id. The Spaho Court explained that although Donawa concluded that § 893.101’s affirmative defense was insufficient to render § 893.13(1)(a)(2) divisible as to its mens rea component, Donawa “did not analyze the actus reus element of § 893.13(1)(a) to ascertain whether the separate acts forbidden by the statute rendered it divisible by establishing multiple, alternative offenses of which a defendant could be convicted.” Id. (emphasis added). The Spaho Court further noted that Donawa had no reason to perform that analysis because the 19 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 20 of 34 § 893.13(1)(a)’s lower mens rea requirement meant that it categorically was not a “drug trafficking crime” under § 1101(a)(43)(B)....
...By contrast, the Spaho Court could not “stop where the Donawa Court did” because illicit trafficking “does not have the same heightened mens rea requirement as drug trafficking crimes.” Id. (citing Matter of L-G-H-, 26 I&N Dec. at 370). Thus, performing the appropriate textual analysis of § 893.13(1)(a), the Spaho Court “agree[d] with the Board that the statute is divisible with respect to the ‘act’ element and that the modified categorical approach applies.” Id. Applying that approach, the Spaho Court explained that some of the alternative elements set forth in § 893.13(1)(a) involve illicit trafficking and some do not....
...or dealing of any controlled substance.” Id. (quoting Matter of Davis, 20 I&N Dec. at 541). The Spaho Court further explained that “unlawful trading or dealing” requires “commercial conduct,” and “[t]wo of the alternative elements of § 893.13(1)(a), sale and possession with intent to sell, are inherently commercial and qualify under the definition of an illicit trafficking aggravated felony.” Id....
...categorically requires consideration”). Because “Spaho was adjudged guilty of selling a controlled 20 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 21 of 34 substance” under § 893.13(1)(a)(1), the Spaho Court concluded that his conviction “easily [fell] within the generic ‘illicit trafficking’ offense.” Id....
...BIA’s definition of illicit trafficking, and we express no opinion on it.” Id. VI. GORDON Subsequently, this Court has followed Spaho in applying the modified categorical approach to determine whether an offense under § 893.13(1)(a) qualifies as an illicit-trafficking aggravated felony. See Gordon, 861 F.3d at 1318- 19. In Gordon, the petitioner had two prior convictions for selling or delivering cannabis, in violation of § 893.13(1)(a)....
...Like the petitioner in Spaho, the petitioner in Gordon argued that the BIA erred in applying the modified categorical approach to determine that his convictions were aggravated felonies. Id. at 1318. Following the same divisibility analysis outlined in Spaho, the Gordon Court explained that the text of § 893.13(1)(a) clearly delineates six discrete alternative elements, meaning that “as we held in Spaho, the statute is divisible.” Id....
...Page: 22 of 34 Applying the modified categorical approach, the Gordon Court then addressed whether the petitioner’s convictions qualified as “illicit trafficking.” Id. Like the Spaho Court, the Gordon Court recognized that some elements of § 893.13(1)(a) involve illicit trafficking and some do not because “illicit trafficking” involves the “unlawful trading or dealing of [a] controlled substance,” which requires “commercial conduct.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Gordon Court then noted, as had Spaho, that sale and possession with intent to sell under § 893.13(1)(a) inherently involve commercial conduct, while the other four alternative elements might not. Id. In Gordon the petitioner’s convictions were for sale or delivery of a controlled substance in violation of § 893.13(1)(a)....
...separate offenses with separate definitions.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). And “[d]elivery, unlike sale, does not include an element of consideration.” Id. Thus, the Gordon Court concluded that a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under § 893.13(1)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony. Id. The Gordon Court then explained that the documents relied on by the BIA to determine which of § 893.13(1)(a)’s elements formed the basis of the petitioner’s convictions “d[id] not disclose whether Mr....
...accordingly not an aggravated felony.” Id. With this background, we turn to Choizilme’s claims on appeal. VII. ANALYSIS OF CHOIZILME’S CLAIM At issue in this appeal is Choizilme’s 2006 conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1). Here, both parties agree that, of the six discrete alternative elements outlined in § 893.13(1)(a)(1), the “sale” element formed the basis of Choizilme’s 2006 conviction, and the state court records submitted by the government during Choizilme’s immigration proceedings confirm this to be the case. See Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249; see also Gordon, 861 F.3d at 1319; Spaho, 837 F.3d at 1178. Accordingly, we must determine whether a conviction for sale of cocaine under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) categorically qualifies as illicit trafficking in a controlled substance under § 1101(a)(43)(B)....
...23 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 24 of 34 trafficking requires knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance as a mens rea element. As such, he maintains that convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), which lack that mens rea element, categorically do not qualify as aggravated felonies. As described above, Spaho held, using the definition of illicit trafficking described in Matter of L-G-H-, that a conviction such as Choizilme’s for sale of cocaine under § 893.13(1)(a)(1) constitutes illicit trafficking within the meaning of § 1101(a)(43)(B)....
...ance being trafficked. Accordingly, consistent with the BIA’s decision in Matter of L-G-H- and this Court’s decision in Spaho, we conclude that the BIA properly determined that Choizilme’s 2006 conviction for sale of cocaine in violation of § 893.13(1)(a)(1) qualifies as an illicit-trafficking aggravated felony under the INA, making Choizilme ineligible for cancellation of removal....
...JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I concur in the judgment. In Spaho v. U.S. Atty. General, 837 F.3d 1172, 1178 (11th Cir. 2012)— exercising plenary review independent of any BIA interpretation—we squarely held that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) “constitutes an ‘illicit trafficking’ aggravated felony” pursuant to 8 U.S.C....
...§ 1101(a)(43)(B). I dissented in Spaho and continue to believe it was wrongly decided, see id. at 1179–82 (Jordan, J., dissenting), but it seems to me that the case necessarily drives the result here because Mr. Choizilme was also convicted of violating § 893.13(1)(a)(1). The fact that the Spaho panel, see id....
...r, and engages in its own interpretation of the term. If we adhere to the portion of Spaho that agreed with the BIA’s use of the modified categorical approach, see 837 F.3d at 1177, but still get to decide anew whether a conviction under § 893.13(1)(a)(1) constitutes “illicit trafficking in a 28 Case: 15-13845 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 29 of 34 controlled substance,” I conclude that the term is ambiguous....
Copy

Waling Choizilme v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 886 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2018).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

convictions for drug offenses under Florida Statute § 893.13. After review and with the benefit of oral argument
Copy

Dickerson v. State, 783 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113

ORFINGER, R.B., J. Mathew Dickerson (Dickerson), challenges the constitutionality of sections 893.13(l)(e) and 812.171, Florida Statutes (1999), which enhance the penalties imposed on defendants convicted of selling, manufacturing, delivering or possessing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a convenience business. Dickerson claims that the statutes are void for vagueness. We find the statutes to be constitutional and affirm Dickerson’s judgment and sentence. The relevant portion of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authori...
...places a reasonable person on notice of what constitutes “convenience business.” Dickerson then entered a negotiated plea of no contest and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. In challenging the constitutionality of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), Dickerson argues that the trial court should have found the statute to be unconstitutional because the language of the statute is vague in its creation of a 1000-foot drug-free zone around convenience businesses....
...nd burden rests on defendant to establish the contrary). A challenge to a statute on grounds of vagueness turns initially to the *1147 nature of the behavior the statute seeks to regulate. Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Since section 893.13(l)(e) does not regulate constitutionally protected conduct, it could only be found to be unconstitutionally vague if the statutory language is so vague that it fails to give adequate notice of any conduct that the statute proscribes....
...convenience business.” This argument is unavailable to Dickerson unless he first demonstrates that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case. Dickerson has not shown that his conduct did not fall within the application of section 893.13(l)(e) and cannot challenge the statute for vagueness with respect to the hypothetical conduct of others....
...hat certain drug offenses committed within 1000 feet of a “convenience business” would be enhanced. There is no protected right to sell narcotics anywhere. See Burch, 545 So.2d at 281 . While the provisions of criminal statutes, such as sections 893.13 and 812.171, “must be strictly construed according to their letter,” see Perkins v....
...ns of common intelligence of what conduct will render them liable to be prosecuted for its violation.” Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So.2d 192, 198 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 818 , 102 S.Ct. 98 , 70 L.Ed.2d 88 (1981) (citations omitted). Here, section 893.13(l)(e) defines a “convenience business” by referencing section 812.171, which clearly defines the term “convenience business” and is not susceptible to more than one meaning....
Copy

State v. Bailey, 614 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3666, 1993 WL 88675

...CURIAM. The state appeals orders which granted motions to dismiss in three criminal cases. The appeals have been consolidated because all involve the same issue. In each case, the trial court dismissed the information based upon its conclusion that section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), is unconstitutionally vague because the term “public housing facility” is undefined....
Copy

Peterson v. State, 578 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612, 1991 WL 41979

...granted. In April 1989, Peterson was arrested for public consumption of alcohol in violation of a Haines City ordinance. A search incident to that arrest revealed Peterson was also in possession of quantities of cocaine and cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as certain drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147, Florida Statutes (1989)....
Copy

State v. Glenn, 545 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 27951

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Defendant was charged by information with one count of purchasing cocaine at or near a school in violation of section 893.13(1)(e) & (f), Florida Statutes (1987), and one count of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1987)....
...mended sentencing guidelines. The state seeks review of the trial court's downward departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines because the trial court gave no written reasons for the departure. Initially, we reject defendant's argument that section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), is unconstitutional....
Copy

Ronald Brown, Jr. v. Sheriff Mike Williams, 270 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), section 895.05, Florida Statutes. The property seized is alleged to have been obtained by Smokers Video through the illegal activity of selling synthetic marijuana, including: (1) violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, governing sale of a controlled substance; (2) violations of section 893.0356, Florida Statutes, governing sale of controlled substance, as analog; and (3) violations of section 499.0051(13), Florida Statutes, governi...
Copy

Woods v. State, 83 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1020028, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4779

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011)], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Diaz v. State, 84 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4778, 2012 WL 1020026

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Walters v. State, 710 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2876, 1998 WL 135081

...State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996). In quashing the Fifth District’s opinion in Chicone, the supreme court held that guilty knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance was an element of the crime of simple possession of that controlled substance as defined in section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), 1 and possession of paraphernalia as defined in section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...ntial rights and cannot be regarded as harmless error). We reverse and remand for a new trial. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. . This was the same crime the State charged the appellant with although the statute has since been renumbered to section 893.13(6)(a)....
Copy

State v. Dickerson, 634 So. 2d 253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3072, 1994 WL 98987

...Dickerson had actual or constructive possession of the cocaine. Therefore, we hold the trial court erred in dismissing the charge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed; remanded. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . § 893.13(1)©, Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Manning, 595 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2819, 1992 WL 55223

PER CURIAM. We reverse the downward departure sentence imposed upon appellant after his conviction of violation of sections 893.13(1)(e) and 893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...4th DCA 1991); State v. Lane, 582 So.2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As we did in Scates , we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida as one of great public importance: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISION OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? Upon remand appellant shall be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea, entered in reliance on receiving the downward departure sentence....
Copy

United States v. Keith A. Penn (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...§ 922(g), the district court sentenced Keith Penn to the mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In doing so, the court concluded that Penn’s two prior convictions for selling cocaine in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) were “serious drug offense[s]” that Penn “committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C....
...were not se- rious drug offenses under ACCA for two reasons. First, he argues a serious drug offense is an offense that requires proof that the de- fendant knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, which Section 893.13(1)(a) does not require. Second, he asserts that his sale-of-cocaine offenses are not serious drug offenses because Sec- tion 893.13(1)(a) proscribes attempting to transfer a controlled sub- stance, which he says is not “distributing” a controlled substance and therefore the offense is not a serious drug offense under ACCA. He also contends that...
...The presentence investigation report identified three such qualifying convictions here: Penn’s conviction for armed robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of Florida Statutes § 812.13(2)(a) and his two convictions for selling cocaine in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a). Although Section 893.13(1)(a) proscribes several kinds of conduct (i.e., “sell[ing], manufactur[ing], or deliver[ing], or possess[ing] with in- tent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance”), the state court entere...
...Here, Penn was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine under a Florida statute that provides “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a). Penn makes three arguments that the district court mis- counted his cocaine convictions for the purposes of ACCA. First, he argues that a serious drug offense must have a mens rea element requiring that the defendant know of the illicit nature of the con- trolled substance that he possesses, which Section 893.13(1)(a) lacks. Second, he argues that Section 893.13(1)(a) proscribes a broader range of conduct than the definition of “serious drug of- fense” covers....
...y the definition of a “serious drug offense.” Id. at 1267. Then, in Shu- lar v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020), the Supreme Court af- firmed our judgment, id. at 787, that a conviction under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a)—the very provision at issue in this case— qualifies as a serious drug offense, even though it does not require that the defendant know the substance is illicit, United States v. Shular, 736 F....
...ho committed certain generic offenses” based on the elements of their prior convictions. Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 787 (emphasis added). Later, in Xavier Smith, we ruled that Travis Smith and Shular foreclosed the argument that Section 893.13(1)(a)’s lack of a mens rea element as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance means it is not a serious drug offense. 983 F.3d at 1223. And finally, in Jackson, we relied on these precedents in stating that we have repeatedly “rejected the argument that Sec- tion 893.13(1) cannot qualify as a ‘serious drug offense’ under ACCA because it lacks a mens rea element.” 55 F.4th at 852-53. Simply put, Penn’s mens rea argument is a nonstarter. USCA11 Case: 21-12420 Document: 80-1 D...
...8 Opinion of the Court 21-12420 B. Turning to Penn’s second argument, we must answer a question of first impression about whether Penn’s convictions un- der Section 893.13(1)(a) for “sell[ing]” cocaine may be counted as serious drug offenses under ACCA. Relying on a Florida jury in- struction, Penn argues that Section 893.13(1)(a) proscribes a broader range of conduct than ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense” covers....
...First, we explain why our existing precedent does not resolve the issue. Second, we identify the least culpable conduct made illegal by the state statute, which is “attempted transfer” of a controlled substance for value. Third, we conclude that the least culpable conduct prohibited by Section 893.13(1)(a) fits within the definition of a serious drug offense— that is, it is an offense “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.” 1. Pointing to Travis Smith and Xavier Smith, the government contends that the prior panel precedent rule requires us to con- clude that Penn’s convictions under Section 893.13(1)(a) are serious drug offenses because we have concluded that such convictions USCA11 Case: 21-12420 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 9 of 27 21-12420 Opinion of the Court 9 were serious drug offenses before....
...Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016). And any “answers” to questions neither presented nor decided are not precedent. Jackson, 55 F.4th at 853. Neither Travis Smith nor Xavier Smith addressed Penn’s argument that Section 893.13(1)(a) criminalizes a broader range of conduct than is covered by ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.” In any event, our recent decision in Jackson forecloses the government’s argument about how to apply our pre-Jackson prec- edents. There, the government made the same argument that it makes here: the government argued that our precedents conclu- sively establish that Section 893.13(1)(a) is a serious drug offense no matter any defendant’s argument to the contrary....
...questions: (1) “whether the definition [of ‘serious drug offense’] re- quires that the state offense match certain generic offenses” and (2) whether the lack of a mens rea element as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance means Section 893.13(1)(a) is not a serious drug offense....
...Neither Travis Smith nor USCA11 Case: 21-12420 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 10 of 27 10 Opinion of the Court 21-12420 Xavier Smith answers the question Penn has asked us to resolve: whether Section 893.13(1)(a) prohibits conduct that goes beyond the definition of a serious drug offense. 2. We now turn to the elements of Penn’s state-law convic- tions....
...First, we must analyze the elements of the offense based on state law at the time of Penn’s conviction. See McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816, 820 (2011). In 2015 (the year a Florida court entered Penn’s two sale-of-cocaine convictions), the language of Section 893.13(1)(a) was “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) (2015)....
...only the elements of the crime of conviction. Id. Here, Penn’s con- victions involved the “sell” element, so that must be the focus of our inquiry. Penn contends (and the government concedes) that the least culpable act that Section 893.13(1)(a) proscribed in 2015 is the “at- tempted transfer” of a controlled substance for value. We agree. Under the 2014 amendments to the Florida pattern jury instruc- tions for Section 893.13(1)(a), “‘sell’ means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for” a thing of value or a promise for a thing of value....
...Because the presump- tion of correctness that attaches to these jury instructions has not been rebutted, we conclude that the attempted transfer of a con- trolled substance for value is the least culpable act covered by Sec- tion 893.13(1)(a)’s proscription of the sale of a controlled substance. USCA11 Case: 21-12420 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 12 of 27 12 Opinion of the Court 21-12420...
...There is a perfect match between what the state offense proscribes and what is “distributing.” If ACCA hypothetically covered offenses “prohibiting” the conduct of “distributing” instead of those “involving” that conduct, the re- sult would still be the same. The conduct that Section 893.13(1)(a) prohibits—attempting to transfer—is not merely related to distrib- uting, it is “distributing.” Shular’s reading of “involving” as “neces- sarily entails” has no bearing on this case....
...w is not an inchoate offense. Accordingly, we hold that the conduct of “distributing” in Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) includes attempted transfers of controlled substances. Therefore, Penn’s convictions under Section 893.13(1)(a) are serious drug offenses because the least culpable act that Section 893.13(1)(a) proscribes is an attempted transfer. C. Having held that Penn’s sale-of-cocaine convictions are seri- ous drug offenses, we turn to his final contention—that he i...
...old that “distributing” in Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) includes attempting to transfer a controlled sub- stance. Because the least culpable act covered by Florida’s prohibi- tion of the sale of a controlled substance under Section 893.13(1)(a) is the attempted transfer of a controlled substance for value, Penn’s two convictions for violating that section are “serious drug of- fense[s].” Penn also did not commit those offenses on the same “oc- casion” within the ordinary meaning of the word....
Copy

Fuad Fares Fuad Said v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2022).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He ar- gues that he satisfied his burden of demonstrating his eligibility for cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents be- cause his violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) did not relate to a con- trolled substance, as defined in 21 U.S.C....
...that is, if the substances proscribed by the Florida law are all feder- ally controlled substances—then the state conviction triggers im- migration consequences. Id.; see also Guillen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 910 F.3d 1174, 1185 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that § 893.13(6)(a) is divisible by the identity of the substance involved). The Supreme Court has made clear that litigants who con- tend that state statutes are broader than their federal analogues cannot simply apply “legal imagination to a state statute's lan- guage” and hope to prevail....
...plar cases precluded overbreadth, despite the petitioner’s hypothet- ical of expelling urine on a child’s jellyfish sting). In Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, the BIA held that the al- ien’s convictions for possession of marijuana in violation of § 893.13(6)(a) constituted violations of state law relating to a con- trolled substance, as defined in § 802....
...- duct an analogous federal statute does not.” Id. at 660. USCA11 Case: 21-12917 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 10 of 10 10 Opinion of the Court 21-12917 Because a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) did not relate to a controlled substance as defined under federal law, Said’s con- viction under this statute in 2017 did not affect his ability to accrue the required seven years of continuous eligibility necessary for can- cellation of removal....
Copy

Ashford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3080, 1995 WL 124679

...Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . These were possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, § 893.13(1), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Chaviano v. State, 618 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3354, 1993 WL 86466

deliver within 1000 feet of a school pursuant to section 893.-13(l)(e), count two. Both charges were enhanced
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases - Report 2017-03 – Corrected Opinion (Fla. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

....1 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2008 [995 So. 2d 489] and amended in 2018. -7- 25.7 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6), Fla....
...nts beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knew of the presence ofpossessed a substance. 2. (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 32. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with possessing more than 20 grams of cannabis. 43. The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. § 893.13(6)(c), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...ct its control by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. §§ 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...her (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis if the felony level of cannabis is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 - 11 - POSSESSION OF MORE THAN TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LISTED IN 893.13(1)(a) OR (1)(b) — 893.13(6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 controlled substance (listed in 893.13(1)(a) or (1)(b)) Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments § 893.21, Fla....
Copy

Pryor v. State, 558 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1831, 1990 WL 31530

GRIFFIN, Judge. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), but specifically reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, which contains section 893.13(1)(a), is unconstitutional....
Copy

Norris Hubbard, Jr. v. State of Florida, 248 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Hubbard's possession offense is improper. Under section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2013), a defendant is subject to enhanced HFO sentencing when "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced . . . is not a violation of [section] 893.13 relating to the . . . possession of a controlled substance." See also Coleman v. State, 927 So. 2d 1048, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("Section 775.084(1)(a)(3) . . . precludes sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to purchase or possession of a controlled substance."); Virgil v....
Copy

Grimsley v. State, 696 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2718, 1997 WL 125903

...On December 30, 1994, appellant was charged by information with: count I, robbery with a weapon in violation of section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993); count II, carrying a concealed firearm in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1993); and count III, possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

Duke v. State, 578 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2533, 1991 WL 39352

SMITH, Judge. Appellant raises four issues in this appeal of judgments of conviction and sentences for possession of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes, and sale or delivery of cocaine, contrary to section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Reinersman v. State, 382 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Gen., Tallahassee, and Eula Tuttle Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. DANAHY, Judge. The question presented by this appeal is whether an information charging unlawful possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis constitutes a second degree felony under Section 893.13(1)(a)2 of our statutes or a third degree felony under Section 893.13(1)(e). [1] Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(2) [2] He was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven and one-half years probation....
...Because conviction of a third degree felony is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years, neither appellant's original probationary term nor the sentence he appeals could lawfully exceed that period. Simple possession of cannabis, regardless of the amount, is proscribed by Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...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 1978): *327 It is apparent both from Section 893.13(1)(a) and from the text of the session law ......
...On rehearing appellee requests we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question we posed at the outset of our opinion. That question was: "[W]hether an information charging unlawful possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis constitutes a second degree felony under Section 893.13(1)(a)2 of our statutes or a third degree felony under Section 893.13(1)(e)." The same question, worded in a different manner by our brethren on another panel of this court in an altered decision and opinion rendered on rehearing in Beasley v....
...t courts of appeal require that we join in the certification of this question to the Florida Supreme Court. We do so and grant the petition to the extent the question is hereby certified. GRIMES, C.J., and BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c) ... is guilty of a felony of the third degree ...; 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, ... 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 from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or or...
Copy

Evans v. State, 110 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1136425, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4408

...im to the bedroom. We therefore reverse the conviction and sentence on the marijuana charge, but affirm the trafficking conviction and sentence. Affirmed in part; and reversed in part. TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur. . The defendant also argues that section 893.13 is unconstitutional. That issue has been resolved adversely to the defendant. See State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412, 422 (Fla.2012) (holding that section 893.13 is not facially unconstitutional).
Copy

Eddie v. Rutledge, 117 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1136421, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4407

MORGAN, DAVID C., Associate Judge. Appellant, Eddie Rutledge, asks this court to declare sections 893.101 and 893.13, Florida Statutes (2007), facially unconstitutional and to vacate his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana in excess of twenty grams....
...Therefore, Rutledge requests that we vacate his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana in excess of twenty grams. However, after the filing of Rutledge’s initial brief, this argument was resolved by the Florida Supreme Court’s holding that sections 893.101 and 893.13 of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Act do not violate due process and thus are constitutional....
...igmatie felony conviction” is also without merit. We have expressly held that possession of controlled substance in Florida is a general intent crime, not a strict liability crime. See Maestas v. State, 76 So.3d 991, 995-96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Section 893.13 offenses are general intent crimes.......
Copy

Arias v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 482 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2007).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND Arias was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on August 17, 1973. On May 13, 1988, Arias pled guilty to and was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

State v. Johnson, 591 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2323, 1991 WL 35415

...a bargain with the appellee, sentenced the appellee to a downward departure sentence of one year probation on each count. The State first argues that the trial court erred in not sentencing the appellee to a three year mandatory minimum, pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, on the purchasing cocaine near a school charge. Section 893.13(l)(e) was not in effect at the time the appellee committed the offense....
Copy

Andrews v. State, 689 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2510, 1997 WL 121106

PER CURIAM. We affirm an order denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. We need not address the issue, whether possession of drugs with intent to sell is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, so as to preclude its being considered as a basis for habitual offender sentencing, as the record reflects sufficient otherwise qualifying convictions demonstrating that Appellant is entitled to no relief....
Copy

State v. Neth, 615 So. 2d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2996, 1993 WL 74947

HARRIS, Judge. Gary Charles Neth was charged with seven counts of withholding information from a physician under section 893.13(2)(a)(7), Florida Statutes. Although each such offense, singly, is a misdemean- or, section 893.13(2)(b) enhances the offense to a third degree felony “upon a second or subsequent violation.” The State chose to file the charges in a single action in the circuit court alleging one misdemeanor count (the felony-qualifying count) and six third degree felonies....
Copy

Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases (2003-1), 869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 111, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 417, 2004 WL 524907

...§ 776.06(l)(b), FlaStat. Definition; give if applicable A “firearm” is legally defined as (adapt from § 790.001(6), Fla.Stat., as required by allegations). Proposal 4. Removal of an obsolescent drug abuse instruction DRUG ABUSE — POSSESSION ON OR NEAR SCHOOL F,S,893.13(l)(e) Before you can — find—the- defendant gailty-oi--(crime - charged) the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Elements 4, — (Defendant) {sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with...
Copy

State v. Rodriguez, 707 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2647, 1998 WL 191138

PER CURIAM. We reverse because the trial court was without authority to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence required under section 893.13(l)(c)l, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that a person convicted of violating it “must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” See State v....
Copy

Graham v. State, 634 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2500, 1994 WL 84136

PER CURIAM. Miki Graham appeals her convictions for two counts of sale of cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing facility, as proscribed by section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (1991). After her motion to dismiss was denied, she pleaded nolo contendere to the charges, reserving the right to appeal the constitutionality of this statute. The Florida Supreme Court recently held section 893.13(l)(i) 'unconstitutional....
Copy

Nweze v. State, 754 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2950, 2000 WL 282322

...State, 685 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1996). If defense counsel recommends a defendant accept a plea offer, a Nelson inquiry is not required, absent allegations the lawyer is incompetent. Merelus v. State, 735 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.03(2)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 784.07(2)(b), 784.07(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 843.01, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2951, 2000 WL 282325

...When defense counsel ran out of time during his rebuttal argument, he asked for and received additional time. Under these facts we cannot find any abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., dissents, with opinion. . § 893.13(l)(a)l„ 893.03(2)(a)4„ Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.13(6)(a), 893.03(2)(a)4., Fla....
Copy

Brown v. State, 754 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2945, 2000 WL 282748

...We accept this suggestion and vacate the conviction and sentence on count II and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing on the remaining counts. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. HARRIS, J., dissents, with opinion. . § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Turner v. State, 615 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 72311

...Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Marilyn McFadden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges his conviction for selling cocaine within 200 feet of a public housing project. He argues: (1) that section 893.13(1)(i) is unconstitutional because it is vague, it violates his rights to due process and equal protection, and amounts to an invalid exercise of the police power; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to offer him the opportunity to withdraw his plea where the written plea, waiver and consent form indicated an incorrect guidelines sentence, and (3) that the trial court imposed an illegal probation order. With respect to appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(i), we affirm....
Copy

Travis Montez Edwards v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...Tiffin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (withdrew after briefing); and Cynthia Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee. KHOUZAM, Judge. Travis Edwards appeals his dual convictions under section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2016), for selling heroin and fentanyl, arguing that selling a mixture of the two only counts as one offense for double jeopardy purposes. Because no double jeopardy violation occurred, we affirm....
...Sheriff's Office during a controlled buy on December 15, 2016. Chemical testing revealed that the heroin was mixed with fentanyl, another controlled substance. Edwards was thereafter charged with two counts of sale or delivery of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(a)(1), one for sale of heroin and the other for sale of fentanyl....
...2d at 371. "It is a common sense approach, guided by the statutory language, context, similar enactments, and case law." Guetzloe v. State, 980 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Since there is little case law in Florida addressing double jeopardy in section 893.13(1)(a)(1), or mixed illicit drugs in general, statutory language and context are the more useful guides in Edwards' case. When evaluating statutory language, "the a/any test is a valid linguistic tool that is helpful in...
...1998) (applying Grappin and Watts and holding that the term "any officer" in a violent arrest statute is ambiguous, allowing only one prosecution for violently resisting an arrest even if multiple police officers are involved). Applying this test in Edwards' case, we look to the language of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), which reads as follows: (1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
...ve intent, we "consider . . . the purpose of the statute, the evil to be corrected, the legislative history, and the pertinent case law that has applied the statute or similar enactments." Id. (citing Bautista, 863 So. 2d at 1186). Section 893.13 is part of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. § 893.01. Chapter 893 is meant "to comprehensively address drug abuse prevention and control in this state." § 893.015, Fla. Stat. (2017). The plain language of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016) generally focuses on various controlled substances as "named or described" in various subsections of section 893.03. Under section 893.13(1)(a), the type of drug sold determines whether sale of a controlled substance is a second-degree felony, third-degree felony, or first- degree misdemeanor....
...Considering this statutory scheme, it becomes clear that each type of drug sold is intended to be a "unit of prosecution" and can be punished separately. Indeed, to hold otherwise would lead to the absurd result that a mixture of two drugs within any subsection of 893.13(1) would constitute a single crime (with a single punishment) but a mixture of drugs from different subsections of 893.13(1) would constitute two crimes (with two punishments). The legislature did not intend such an absurd result....
...-6- statute so as to achieve an absurd result." (citing McKibben v. Mallory, 293 So. 2d 48, 51 (Fla.1974))). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and hold that each type of controlled substance prohibited by 893.13(1)(a)(1) constitutes an allowable unit of prosecution for that statute. Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur. -7-
Copy

Lowman v. State, 781 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3355, 2001 WL 252070

PER CURIAM. We affirm all issues. In regard to appellant’s specific claim that section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), is unconstitutionally vague and denies equal protection of the law, we note that this court recently rejected a similar challenge *1149 to the statute in State v....
Copy

Williams v. State, 651 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2562, 1995 WL 107426

...Alvin Williams timely appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Williams pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (cannabis) with the intent to deliver within 200 feet of a public housing facility in violation of section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (1991). Subsequent to Williams’ plea and sentence, the “public housing facility” provision in section 893.13(l)(i) was declared unconstitutionally void for vagueness....
...2d DCA 1992); Bell v. State, 585 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, section 924.34 requires that we direct the trial court to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver under section 893.13(l)(b)....
Copy

Morrow v. State, 557 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 150, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 390, 1990 WL 29515

PER CURIAM. We have for review Morrow v. State, 547 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(1)(e),[ 1 ] FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? Id....
...Const. In Burch v. State, 558 So.2d 1 (Fla.1990), we answered the certified question affirmatively. Therefore, we approve the decision below. 2 It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: (e) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a c...
Copy

Denson v. State, 83 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 832869, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4019

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); accord Little v....
Copy

State v. Allen, 557 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1583, 1990 WL 26225

PER CURIAM. The state appeals the trial court’s imposition of appellee’s mitigated sentence. Ap-pellee was charged with count I, purchase of cocaine at or near a school, in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), and count II, possession of cocaine....
Copy

Baker v. State, 951 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 737541

...or possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, manufacture or deliver cocaine within 1,000 feet of a convenience business. Because we find that the business in question did not meet the statutory definition of a convenience business, we reverse. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2005), defines the offense in question and states: (1)(e) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess *79 with intent to sell, manufacture, or deli...
Copy

Nelson v. State, 707 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2422, 1998 WL 106982

with intent to sell or deliver in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l., and section 893.03(2)(a)4., Florida
Copy

Simmons v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 465 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 663, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13014

...olated section 561.29(l)(c), Florida Statutes, by maintaining a public nuisance in violation of section 823.10, Florida Statutes. Count 2 alleged that appellants, through their employees, violated section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating section 893.13(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes....
...of May 12, 1982 and October 30, 1982. The other 9 counts alleged, and the hearing officer found, single-date violations of section 561.29(l)(a) through appellants’ employees’ violations of various criminal statutes, including sale of marijuana, (section 893.13(l)(a)2; Counts 16 and 17); gambling (sections 849.01 and 849.08; Counts 14 and 15); and maintaining a place which is used for keeping or selling controlled substances (section 893.13(2)(a)5; Counts 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10)....
Copy

Jose Emilio Ulloa Francisco v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 884 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2018).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

... The state statute under which the alien had been convicted created the felony of “trafficking in cocaine,” which was defined to include the selling, purchasing, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing of cocaine, or the bringing of cocaine into Florida. Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c....
...16 Four weeks later, on February 3, the Assistant State Attorney of Miami-Dade County filed a two-count Information in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court charging Francisco with drug trafficking. Count 1 alleged that Francisco violated Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c, which makes it unlawful to sell, 16 The affidavit the arresting officer filed in support of a Complaint issued on the same day described the circumstances of Francisco’s arrest. [On January 13, 2...
...Ulloa was transported to NMBPD/DCJ for processing. 13 purchase, manufacture, deliver, or bring cocaine into Florida or to knowingly possess cocaine. Count 2 alleged that Francisco violated Fla. Stat. §§ 777.04(3) and 893.135(5) by conspiring to commit the Count 1 offense....
...y mixture containing cocaine, in the amount of four-hundred (400) grams or more, but less than one-hundred and fifty (150) kilograms of cocaine, or any mixture containing cocaine, in violation of s. 893.135(1)(b)1.c, Fla....
...confederate with another person or persons, to wit: VICTOR, to commit a felony under the laws of the State of Florida, to wit: unlawful Trafficking in Cocaine, or any mixture containing cocaine, as described in s. 893.135(5) and s. 777.04(3) and s. 777.011, Fla. Stat., contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c states, in pertinent part: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine, ....
...§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii),19 as an alien convicted of an “aggravated felony,” a term defined to encompass “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” and “drug trafficking crime[s],” INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).20 It is a first degree felony under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(5) to “conspire[] . . . to commit any act prohibited” by Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)....
...moval. Faced with the IJ’s decision, Francisco’s attorney represented that Francisco would seek political asylum and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against 21 The IJ reasoned that “[Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c] and certified criminal court documents” indicated that Francisco committed an aggravated drug trafficking offense within the aggravated felony definition....
...The IJ also ruled that Francisco was “ineligible to seek political asylum or withholding of removal” under the CAT. Francisco appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA on December 20, 2013. He argued that his conviction could not amount to an aggravated felony because Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c does not necessarily criminalize conduct that falls within the INA’s definition of “aggravated felony.” The BIA vacated the IJ’s decision on April 28, 2014. It did so after concluding that Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c is divisible—meaning that it contains offenses for which there were analogues in the INA definition of aggravated felony and offenses for which there were not....
...o. The amendment alleged that Francisco was removable for violating a “law or regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance,” INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), 23 because of his conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c....
...21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable. INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). 18 Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c did not constitute an aggravated felony. She reasoned that Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 735 F.3d at 1283—where we held that Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)24 is not divisible—bound her to apply the categorical approach to Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c. Applying that approach, the IJ observed that Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c does not require proof that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, whereas its federal analogue, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), requires it.25 The IJ concluded that because Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c does not require the same mens rea as the federal analogue, Francisco was not convicted of an aggravated felony....
...The appropriate venue was the immigration court in Orlando, Florida, because Francisco was in 24 This statute prohibits a person from “sell[ing], manufactur[ing], or deliver[ing], or possess[ing] with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a). It does not criminalize mere possession as does Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c. See Paccione v....
...Florida and to remand the case for consideration of its alternate ground for removal. 20 application for cancellation of removal should be granted. The IJ agreed with the Government that Francisco’s conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c related to a controlled substance and therefore found Francisco removable....
...The IJ next considered Francisco’s application for cancellation of removal. To prevail, Francisco had to prove that he was eligible for that relief—in particular, that he had not been convicted of an aggravated felony. The focus was on his conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c. In an effort to prove that the conviction was not an aggravated felony, Francisco testified....
...cocaine. Nevertheless, the IJ applied the modified categorical approach and invoked the Moncrieffe presumption to conclude that Francisco had been convicted of mere possession of cocaine, 28 the least serious conduct criminalized by Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c, which did not fall within the INA’s definition of aggravated felony....
...31 The IJ did not elaborate on these “equities” and “representations.” 22 prove his eligibility for cancellation of removal by establishing that his conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c did not constitute the aggravated felony of trafficking in an illicit controlled substance....
...§ 1101(a)(43)(B). The Government went on to observe that the term “illicit trafficking” included “any state . . . felony conviction involving the unlawful trading or dealing of any controlled substance.” Since two of the offenses in Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c involved trading and dealing in cocaine, commercial transactions of a controlled substance, the Government argued that the IJ erred in failing to require Francisco to prove that his Count 1 conviction was not for engaging in su...
...e seriousness of the conduct for which he had been convicted. In his brief, Francisco conceded that he was removable for having been convicted for violating a law relating to a controlled substance offense. He also conceded that Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c is a divisible statute which 23 “criminalizes conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA, such as the sale, purchase, or manufacture of cocaine and some conduct that is not, such a...
...an offense having no analogue among the offenses the INA designates as aggravated felonies. 32 According to Francisco, Moncrieffe required the IJ, and thus the BIA, to “presume that [his] conviction rested on nothing but the least culpable conduct” criminalized in Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c: mere possession of cocaine. 33 On June 18, 2015, the BIA overturned the IJ’s decision and reinstated the removal finding. Once again, the BIA found that the modified categorical approach applies to Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c because the statute effectively creates multiple crimes, some of which qualify as aggravated felonies and some 32 In referring to the “record,” Francisco was apparently referring to the judgment, includin...
...offense or engaged in illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, aggravated felonies listed in INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Since neither Count 1 of the Information nor the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court revealed which Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c offense Francisco violated, the onus fell on him to prove that he had not committed an aggravated felony....
...cancellation of removal, and ordered Francisco removed to the Dominican Republic. III. Throughout this litigation, the parties and the BIA have agreed that the modified categorical approach applies to Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b) because it is a 34 The BIA distinguished our decision in Donawa on the ground that Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c “expressly requires that the defendant have knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession,” the same mens rea as required in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In contrast, the statute at issue in Donawa, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(2), did not require knowledge of the nature of the substance in possession, meaning that the crime did not have a categorical match in the CSA. 25 divisible statute.35 In Cintron v. U.S. Attorney General, however, a panel of this Court recently held that Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(c) is neither divisible nor a categorical match to a federal crime in the CSA. 2018 WL 947533, at *3–*4, *6. The holding of Cintron controls our decision because Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b) and (1)(c) have substantively identical language.36 Therefore, Francisco’s conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c cannot be an aggravated felony....
...§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we may review questions of law, INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). It is a legal question whether a conviction under a statute is an aggravated felony. Donawa, 735 F.3d at 1279–80. 36 In pertinent part, Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)–(c) states: (b) 1....
...mmits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in illegal drugs,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 37 Since we consider Fla. Stat. 893.135(1)(b)1.c to be an indivisible statute that lacks a categorical match in the CSA, we do not reach the issue of whether the Moncrieffe presumption applies in determining an alien’s eligibility for cancellation of removal when the Shepard docu...
...federal misdemeanor”). 38 In appealing the IJ’s January 13, 2015 decision, the Government argued, as second ground for reversal, that in light of the conduct that led to Francisco’s convictions of conspiring to violate and violating Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(b)1.c, the IJ abused his discretion in granting Francisco’s application for cancellation of removal....
Copy

Tisdale v. State, 696 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2119, 1997 WL 106832

PER CURIAM. Dwight Tisdale was convicted of sale and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

R.C. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...579 (1993). -2- II. THE PETITION AND THE HEARING The State filed a delinquency petition charging R.C. as follows: Count One, possession of cannabis (less than twenty grams), a violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2014); and Count Two, possession of drug paraphernalia, a violation of section 893.147(1)....
Copy

State v. Gentry, 57 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3272, 2011 WL 830634

...The trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur. . Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to rule 9.140(C)(1)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. . See § 812.014(2)(c)6, Fla. Stat. (2008). . See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Guilford, 633 So. 2d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1874, 1994 WL 72529

...f the sentences. This court has previously dealt with back-end sentences. See State v. Disbrow, 626 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); State v. Carder, 625 So.2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). . §§ 812.13(1) & 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991). . Count I, § 893.135(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat.; Count II, §§ 893.135(4) & 893.135(1)0)2, Fla.Stat. (1991). . Counts I and II, § 893.13(1)0)1, Fla.Stat. (1991); Counts III and IV, § 893.13(1)©, Fla. Stat. (1991). . Count I, § 893.13(1)(a)1, Fla.Stat. (1991); Count II, § 893.13(1)(f) Fla.Stat. (1991). . Count I, § 893.13(1)© Fla.Stat....
Copy

State, Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Azqueriz, 485 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 627, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874

grams, or a misdemeanor amount pursuant to section 893.-13(l)(f), Florida Statutes [1983]), was seized
Copy

Mariano v. State, 615 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2458, 1993 WL 64822

...Appellant was charged by information with uttering a forged prescription for a controlled substance, bontril, and she entered a plea of not guilty and elected a nonjury trial. The trial court found appellant guilty as charged, withheld adjudication, and sentenced her to six months’ probation. We reverse. Section 893.13(3)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1991), under which appellant was charged, provides that it is unlawful “[t]o acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.” (emphasis added)....
Copy

Leslie v. State, 108 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 756915, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3293

...f law. See U.S. v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.2003) (holding same regarding traffic stop for lack of rearview mirror based on substantially identical Alabama statute). 2 REVERSED and REMANDED. PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur. . See § 893.13(6)(a)-(b), Fla....
Copy

State v. Francois, 650 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1943, 1995 WL 79900

..., Florida Statutes (1993), 2 to impose a downward departure sentence and to require the defendant to receive substance abuse treatment. Accordingly, we affirm the downward departure sentence. . Ch. 93 — 406, § 22 at 2948, Laws of Florida, amended § 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (1991) effective June 17, 1993, through December 31, 1993....
Copy

Grimmage v. State, 427 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18774

MILLS, Judge. Grimmage appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1981), contending that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal and that the jury was erroneously instructed by the trial court....
...stion as to whether the bag of marijuana thrown into the automobile by Grimmage was the same bag recovered by police officers and later introduced at trial. We further hold that the trial court did not err in giving the standard jury instruction for Section 893.13(l)(c) even though that instruction does not contain language on intent to deliver....
Copy

State v. Hannah, 620 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6141, 1993 WL 191990

...Hannah plead guilty to the charge and judgment, was entered against him on April 1, 1991. The school involved was the Pine Ridge Center School. In State v. Lee, 583 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), an opinion issued on July 3, 1991, this court held that the Pine Ridge Center School was not a “school” within the meaning of section 893.13(2)(e)....
Copy

McCutcheon v. State, 600 So. 2d 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6991, 1992 WL 123327

...He raises five issues, only one of which merits discussion. The trial court sentenced appellant to five years’ imprisonment, with a three year mandatory minimum sentence, followed by ten years’ probation for possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)....
Copy

Alcorn v. State, 82 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8392, 2011 WL 2200625

...State, 733 So.2d 963, 969 (Fla.1999) (recognizing the sufficiency of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to convey a plea offer). In Count I, appellant was charged with sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a church, a first degree felony with a thirty-year statutory maximum. § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla....
Copy

Marlow v. State, 545 So. 2d 940 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1374, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3138, 1989 WL 58708

POLEN, Judge. This appeal is taken from a conviction and sentence under section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Sheppard v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...5.084(5). This has been referred to as the "sequential conviction" or "sequential felony" requirement. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1251 (Fla. 2001). Additionally, "one of the two prior felony convictions" cannot be for "a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance." § 775.084(1)(a)3....
...He 3 argues that the possession of cocaine conviction does not qualify under the HFO statute. But as one of the postconviction court's prior orders correctly found, Sheppard is incorrect. Because only one of the prior felonies is a violation of section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance, both prior felonies qualify....
Copy

United States v. Clifford Laines, Jr. (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...information about Of- ficer Yanes-Martel’s misconduct been revealed before trial. Vallejo, 297 F.3d at 1164. C. The District Court Did Not Commit Plain Error When It Classified Laines’s Prior Conviction Under Section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes as a “Serious Drug Offense.” Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, if a defendant con- victed of being a felon in possession of a firearm under section 922(g) “has three previous convictions ....
...§ 924(e)(1), his conviction for a drug crime under a Florida statute. That statute prohibited the sale, pur- chase, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to distribute of “a controlled substance.” FLA. STAT. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) (1991); see id....
...These arguments fail. Because Laines did not contest at sentencing whether his prior conviction is a “serious drug offense,” we review only for plain error, Bennett, 472 F.3d at 831, and Laines cannot satisfy that standard. We have held that a conviction under section 893.13(1) qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Crim- inal Act....
...In that case, an alien facing deportation similarly argued that Florida’s definition of co- caine was broader than the federal definition. Chamu, 23 F.4th at 1327, 1329. We disagree. Chamu is distinguishable. Chamu addressed whether a con- viction under Florida Statutes section 893.13(6)(a) is “relat[ed] to a controlled substance” for the purpose of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act, id. at 1329 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)), not whether a conviction under Florida Statutes section 893.13(1)(a)(1) is a “serious drug offense” within the meaning of the Armed Ca- reer Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C....
...So “[w]e decline[d] to hold that Florida’s statute is broader than its federal counterpart based only on the possibility that it might be so.” Id. at 1331. Chamu did not abrogate our precedents about a prior conviction under Florida Statutes sec- tion 893.13(1) qualifying as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Laines has not satisfied his burden on appeal of establishing that his sentencing classification was plainly erroneous....
...After our decision in Chamu v. U.S. Attorney General, 23 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2022), it’s clear that the government has not yet met its burden to show that Laines’s prior conviction for cocaine distribution under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) qualifies as a predicate offense for a sentence en- hancement under ACCA....
...’s con- viction serves as a predicate crime under ACCA caused plain error requiring remand for a new sentencing. I. Laines asserts that his conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) cannot serve as a predicate offense because Flor- ida’s definition of “cocaine” is broader than the federal definition of “cocaine,” so a conviction under Florida law cannot categori- cally qual...
...See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016). The government seeks to do so here, arguing that it is “settled law” that convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) are categorically “serious drug offenses” under our decisions in United States v....
...Laines challenges here—the definition of a “controlled substance.” Id. at 853–54. As we explained in Jackson, the most that can be said about the Smith decisions is that they “assumed that [ACCA’s] ‘se- rious drug offense’ definition and section 893.13(1) encompass the same universe of substances.” Id....
...The Majority Opinion appears to credit the government’s argument that the Smith decisions resolve Laines’s challenge. It cites those decisions for the contention that “[w]e have held that a conviction under section 893.13(1) qualifies as a ‘serious drug of- fense’ under [ACCA],” and then says that “Laines has identified no decision overruling or abrogating these precedents.” Maj....
...faulted for not identifying Jackson. USCA11 Case: 20-12907 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 06/06/2023 Page: 30 of 40 8 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting in Part 20-12907 Smith decisions to conclude that § 893.13(1) is a “serious drug of- fense” in every circumstance. Those decisions did not sweep so broadly. Rather, they answered only the question of whether con- victions under § 893.13(1) can qualify as an ACCA predicate despite that statute’s lack of a mens rea element with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Travis Smith, 775 F.3d at 1267– 68; Xavier Smith, 983 F.3d at 1223. The Smith decisions’ conclusion on that front is binding—but not any broader conclusion that pur- ports to foreclose all potential challenges to § 893.13(1)’s status as an ACCA predicate....
...Chamu, who b[ore] the burden of proof” there, 23 F.4th at 1332, that same dearth of evidence is now fatal for the government, which bears the burden here. To discharge its burden to show that convictions for cocaine distribution under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) can serve as a “serious drug offense” under ACCA, the government must show that there are no nongeometric dia- stereomers of cocaine. For its part, the Majority Opinion tries a couple of different...
...tion, can the fact that a defendant’s “failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes.” United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1323 (11th Cir. 2009). Whether a cocaine-related conviction under section 893.13(a)(1) qualifies as a “serious drug offense” is a legal question, the answer to which is the same in every case for every defendant with such a conviction....
Copy

Gardner v. State, 89 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2012426, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8892

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Bryant v. State, 89 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2012499, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.Sd 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Magana v. State, 846 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8336, 2003 WL 21296012

STRINGER, Judge. Jesus Magana seeks review of a judgment and sentence that imposed a ten-year armed drug trafficking minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (2000). That sentence appears to contain a scrivener’s error .because section 893.13 does not address minimum mandatory sentences. Magana argues that the correct sentencing statute is section 893.135, Florida Statutes (2000), which was declared unconstitutionally enacted in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), appeal voluntarily dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). While Magana is correct that Taylor held section 893.135 to be unconstitutionally enacted, Magana’s sentence is actually supported by section 775.087(2)(a)(l)(q), Florida Statutes (2000)....
Copy

Gilchrist v. State, 784 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7826, 2001 WL 609119

...The court stated: *626 We hold, accordingly, that the mere presence of trace amounts of cocaine on a common object or implement in possession of an accused, where the object or implement is designed and widely used for other legitimate purposes, is insufficient to support a felony for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Allen v. State, 580 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5143

...re. State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d at 1108 ; Butler v. State, 579 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we vacate the sentences imposed in this case and remand for resentencing. Sentences VACATED; REMANDED. GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . § 893.13(1)©, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat....
Copy

A.G. v. State, 562 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4054

...Suspecting that they were observing a drug transaction, the officers attempted to detain A.G. and the other individual by shouting “police.” A.G. threw down a paper bag and fled. The bag contained cocaine. A petition for delinquency was filed, charging A.G. with possession of cocaine with intent to sell. See § 893.13, Fla.Stat....
Copy

Medlock v. State, 489 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1276, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8167

...ce and remand the cause for resentencing to either the recommended guideline sentence or a departure sentence that conforms to the sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701). *850 SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED. UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)(2), Fla.Stat. . § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Weed, 373 So. 2d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15163

...This cause is before us on appeal from orders of the trial court granting appellees’ motions for discharge of Count I of first and second amended informations. Appellees were arrested August 18, 1977, and charged by information filed September 15, 1977, with, Count I, possession of marijuana contrary to Florida Statute section 893.13(l)(e), and, Count II, possession of hashish, contrary to section 893.13(l)(e)....
...appellees were not unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the amendment. 1 The arrest reports against both appellees charge “possession of marijuana over five grams.” Next, Count I of the original information charges a violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(l)(e) expressly, a subsection of the- statute which provides that its violation is a third degree felony....
...t see how this amended information would have changed the facts, or the defense, in the case at bar and the appellees would not have been prejudiced thereby. In such event technical defects are to be excused unless prejudice is shown.” . Fla.Stat. § 893.13(l)(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 from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practi...
Copy

Turnquist v. State, 579 So. 2d 921 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5678, 1991 WL 92375

PER CURIAM. Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that there was evidence before the jury on which it could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sale of cocaine occurred within 1,000 feet of a school. See § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Juan Manuel Reyes v. State of Florida (Fla. 6th DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 6th District Court of Appeal

...2006)). We find that Reyes has satisfied both prongs and is thus entitled to a new appeal on the double jeopardy issue. Reyes’s appellate counsel failed to raise that Reyes’s convictions for both possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), and trafficking in cocaine—28 grams or more, in violation of section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019), violate the proscription against double jeopardy....
Copy

State v. Sosa, 932 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10775, 2006 WL 1787782

...The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Christina Sosa’s motion to suppress. 1 Concluding that Sosa was not illegally detained by the sheriffs deputy prior to the search of her vehicle, we reverse. Sosa was charged with committing the crime of possession of alprazolam. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Cory J. Morgan v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...er than a level 3 offense. Because we find that the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature identify the offense in the severity ranking chart as a level 3 offense, we affirm. Appellant entered an open plea to possession of heroin under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), and possession of drug paraphernalia....
...for possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in scoring possession of heroin as a level 3 offense rather than a level 1 offense. Appellant claims that because possession of a controlled substance, section 893.13(6)(a), is listed under both level 1 and 3 in the Criminal Punishment Code offense severity ranking chart, it must be scored as a level 1 offense. An allegation of scoresheet error presents a pure issue of law reviewed de novo....
...A level 3 primary offense scores 16 points, while a level 1 primary offense scores 4 points. Id. Two portions of the severity ranking chart in section 921.0022(3) are relevant to appellant’s claim. Under the level 1 category, the legislature listed: Florida Statute Felony Degree Description 893.13(6)(a) 3rd Possession of cannabis (more than 20 grams). Under the level 3 category, the legislature listed: Florida Statute Felony Degree Description 893.13(6)(a) 3rd Possession of any controlled substance other than felony possession of cannabis. Appellant pled to possession of heroin in violation of section 893.13(6)(a). Section 893.13(6)(a) states: 2 A person may not be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or...
...pter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree . . . .” The trial court properly overruled appellant’s objection to the scoresheet because no error occurred. Possession of heroin was properly ranked as a level 3 offense. Although section 893.13(6)(a) is listed under both levels 1 and 3, the description section explains that the level 1 ranking is limited to possession of cannabis, while the level 3 ranking is intended for all other possession offenses, including possession of heroin. The statute and ranking chart were both enacted by the legislature in sections 893.13(6)(a) and 921.0022(3), respectively, and demonstrate an intent for possession of all controlled substance offenses to be treated the same except for felony possession of cannabis cases, which the legislature desired to treat less severely....
...See also Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88, 100 (Fla. 2004) (rejecting an interpretation that would “directly undercut this Court’s charge of interpreting statutes as a harmonious whole, giving effect to each of their constituent parts”). The provisions in section 893.13(6)(a) and the listings in the severity ranking chart can easily be harmonized. Although the severity ranking chart lists section 893.13(6)(a) in levels 1 and 3, only by referring to the description in the same severity ranking chart can the various provisions be harmonized....
...State, 750 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1999) (reading related statutory 4 provisions in pari materia to achieve a consistent whole). By reviewing in pari materia the related statutes of sections 921.0022(2), 921.0022(3), and 893.13(6)(a), the legislature was stating that only felony possession of cannabis should be a level 1 for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines.1 In further support of his position, appellant relies on Hicks v....
Copy

Armas v. State, 250 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...and convicted upon an information charging him with one count of possession of cannabis in an amount exceeding 20 grams with the intent to sell or deliver and a second count of manufacturing cannabis, each being a third-degree felony in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015)....
...Shortly thereafter, the court applied the same analysis in holding that separate convictions and sentences for possession of a controlled substance and delivery of the same controlled substance 3 did not violate double jeopardy. Davis v. State , 581 So.2d 893 , 894 (Fla. 1991). Appellant was charged with violating section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), which provides, in pertinent part, that "a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." We agree with the First District...
...We distinguish both McKnight and Guetzloe because in those cases, we were addressing multiple violations of the same offense. Here, Appellant's two criminal offenses are distinguishable discrete acts that are not the same offense, even though both are charged under section 893.13(1)(a), because this statute proscribes alternative or separate forms of criminal conduct....
...." 185 So.3d at 1211 . Simply put, manufacturing of cannabis and possession of cannabis with intent to manufacture are separate offenses under section 775.021(4)(a), even though they have now *821 been codified as crimes under the same subsection of section 893.13....
Copy

Williams v. State, 90 So. 3d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2400951, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10405

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional; rejecting Shelton v....
Copy

Shuler v. State, 984 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2550743

...Shuler was not arrested for a new felony. To the contrary, a notation at the top of the arrest affidavit reads: "Poss of Cocaine W/I/T/S W/I 1000' Church," which can only be interpreted to mean "possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a church," a violation of section 893.13(1)(e)(1), a first-degree felony....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 563 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4624, 1990 WL 86930

...3 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur. . Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.01. . Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Instructions on Substantive Crimes 3/89, Drug Abuse — Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession *209 with Intent F.S. 893.13(l)(a), p. 219, 220 and Drug Abuse — Possession F.S. 893.13(l)(f), p....
Copy

State v. Smith, 562 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4588, 1990 WL 88110

1990), the supreme court held constitutional section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), under which
Copy

Wesley Ward v. Daniel Junior, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...we grant the petition. Ward was charged by information with possession of a concealed weapon by a convicted felon, in violation of sections 790.23(1)(a) and 775.087(4), Florida Statutes, and possession of a controlled substance, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Reidel E. Armas v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...convicted upon an information charging him with one count of possession of cannabis in an amount exceeding 20 grams with the intent to sell or deliver and a second count of manufacturing cannabis, each being a third-degree felony in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015)....
...Shortly thereafter, the court applied the same analysis in holding that separate convictions and sentences for possession of a controlled substance and delivery of the same controlled substance 3 did not violate double jeopardy. Davis v. State, 581 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 1991). Appellant was charged with violating section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), which provides, in pertinent part, that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” We agree with the First D...
...Shortly thereafter, the court applied the same analysis in holding that separate convictions and sentences for possession of a controlled substance and delivery of the same controlled substance 3 did not violate double jeopardy. Davis v. State, 581 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 1991). Appellant was charged with violating section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), which provides, in pertinent part, that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” We agree with the First D...
...2d at 1147-48. We distinguish both McKnight and Guetzloe because in those cases, we were addressing multiple violations of the same offense. Here, Appellant’s two criminal offenses are distinguishable discrete acts that are not the same offense, even though both are charged under section 893.13(1)(a), because this statute proscribes alternative or separate forms of criminal conduct....
...Simply put, manufacturing of cannabis and possession of cannabis with intent to manufacture are 4 § 106.1439, Fla. Stat. (2004). 6 separate offenses under section 775.021(4)(a), even though they have now been codified as crimes under the same subsection of section 893.13. Accordingly, we hold that Appellant’s dual convictions, even though arising out of the same criminal transaction or episode and involving the same cannabis, do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy....
Copy

State v. E.M., 141 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 2862610, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9560

...the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded. STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur. . E.M. was charged with two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver at or near a school pursuant to section 893.13(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2014)....
Copy

Verderosa v. State, 675 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 354620

PER CURIAM. We withdraw our mandate in this Anders 1 appeal. The following sentence had been typed into a form order entitled “Charges/ Costs/ Fees”: “A sum of $100.00 pursuant to section 893.13(4)(b) Florida Statutes *696 (F.D.L.E.).” Initially we thought that this condition was imposed by the trial court and struck it because the defendant was not sentenced for a drug offense....
Copy

Kinard v. State, 675 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 354606

PER CURIAM. We withdraw our mandate in this Anders 1 appeal. The following sentence had been typed into a form order entitled “Charges/ Costs/ Fees”: “A sum of $100.00 pursuant to section 893.13(4)(b) Florida Statutes (F.D.L.E.).” Initially we thought that this condition was imposed by the trial court and struck it because the defendant was not sentenced for a drug offense....
Copy

Mack v. State, 620 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6724, 1993 WL 221394

...4th DCA 1992); Telemaque v. State, 591 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 565 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shelby v. State, 541 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.310. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1991). . §§ 893.03(2)(a)4, 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1991). .§§ 893.13(l)(f), 893.13(l)(g), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Padron, 580 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 110877

...Before HUBBART, COPE and GODERICH, JJ. PER CURIAM. Upon the defendant Roberto Padron's confession of error, which we conclude is well founded, the sentence of 120 days incarceration for the unlawful sale or purchase of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is reversed....
Copy

State v. E.D.R., 959 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9618

...’s lap. The officers had probable cause to arrest him and seize the evidence. We reverse the trial court’s order granting E.D.R.’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

D.S. v. State, 619 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6721, 1993 WL 217503

PER CURIAM. Upon a review of the record as well as the state’s confession of error, we reverse the juvenile’s adjudication of delinquency for conviction of possession of marijuana, pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Roche v. State, 89 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2327775, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9851

WELLS, Chief Judge. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “the uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Hicks v. State, 711 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7166, 1998 WL 314736

intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes. He was placed on
Copy

Bittner v. State, 760 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7387, 2000 WL 770473

substance, a third degree felony, pursuant to section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).. Because
Copy

Cunningham v. State, 647 So. 2d 164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, 1994 WL 256973

...the conviction of purchase of marijuana, or possession of marijuana with intent to purchase it. In count one of the information, appellant was charged with purchase of marijuana, or possession of marijuana with intent to purchase it, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1991). In count two of the information, appellant was charged with possession of more than twenty grams of marijuana, in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...3d DCA1986) (mere temporary control of drugs in presence of owner solely for purpose of verification or testing is legally insufficient to establish possession). We reach this conclusion based upon our belief that one may be convicted of a violation of section 893.13(l)(a) if he or she possesses drugs with the intent to purchase (or sell) them, even if the purchase (or sale) is, for some reason, frustrated before it can be completed. See, e.g., Sipp v. State, 442 So.2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA1983) (conviction pursuant to section 893.13 may be based upon either a completed sale of drugs or possession of drugs with intent to sell)....
Copy

Barta v. State, 89 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2122643, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9565

PER CURIAM. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress without further discussion. We decline Appellant’s invitation to find section 893.13, Florida Statutes unconstitu *304 tional for the reasons expressed in Flagg v....
Copy

State v. Edwards, 581 So. 2d 232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5364, 1991 WL 98032

...The trial court dismissed the charge against Edwards, noting that Lauderdale Manor did not fit within the definition of “school” found in section 228.041, as it was not licensed by the State of Florida, and only one student was working at the first grade level. The trial court stated: To extend Florida Statute 893.13(l)(e) to include Lauderdale Manor Christian Center would be to extend the statute beyond the bounds intended by the Legislature....
...alify as a “school” for purposes of 893.-13(l)(e). For example, the homes of children involved in the Homebound Program, who receive at-home tuteledge [sic] from their parents would qualify as schools for the purpose of prosecution under Statute 893.13(l)(e). This Court does not believe that is either the letter or the intent of [that section]. In State v. Roland, 577 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), this court held that section 893.13(l)(e) did not apply to kindergartens or preschools.. Id. at 681 . In determining whether the kindergarten/preschool involved in that ease fell within the meaning of the undefined term “elementary school” contained in § 893.13(l)(e), this court noted that: *234 [T]he common meaning of the term “elementary school” is the first through sixth grades....
...Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981) defines “elementary school” as “a school usu. including the first six or the first eight grades.” Id. Application of the common meaning of “elementary school” to the instant case reveals that Lauderdale Manor is an elementary school for purposes of section 893.13(l)(e)....
...efore fit within the common meaning of “elementary school.” We reject appellee’s argument that the definitions contained within Chapter 228 should be utilized to define “public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school” as used in § 893.13(l)(e)....
....S.C. § 845a (1985). 4 See State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), aff'd, Burch v. State, 558 So.2d 1 (Fla.1990). Therefore, there is no indication that the Florida Legislature intended the definitions in section 228.041 to be applied to section 893.13(l)(e), when the latter statute was enacted. We do not share the trial court’s concern that our interpretation of section 893.13(l)(e) would expand the definition of school to include private homes where children are tutored....
...titution.” The trial court’s order dismissing the charge against appellee is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings against appellee in accord with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. . Section 893.13(l)(e) provides in pertinent part: (l)(e) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, a contro...
Copy

Johnson v. State, 620 So. 2d 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6238, 1993 WL 196339

sentence, the Court further orders pursuant to F.S. 893.-13(4)(b) that the defendant pay the $100.00 Florida
Copy

United States v. Eugene Jackson (11th Cir. 2022).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. [§] 802)), for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is pre- scribed by law.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). But Jackson con- tended that the cocaine-related conduct that Fla. Stat. § 893.13 pro- hibited when both of Jackson’s cocaine-related convictions oc- curred encompassed, among other things, the sale of, or possession with intent to distribute, ioflupane (123I) (“ioflupane”)....
...Yet when Jackson possessed the firearm here, ioflupane was not a “controlled substance” for purposes of the “serious drug offense” definition in § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). So Jackson urged that, categorically, a cocaine- related offense under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 at the times of his cocaine- 2 As relevant here, these offenses qualified as “violent felon[ies]” because they each were a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threat- ened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C....
...For its part, the government conceded that Jackson’s 1998 Florida battery conviction did not qualify as an ACCA predicate. It also agreed that the 2012 aggravated assault and aggravated battery counted as only a single “violent felony.” As to the cocaine-related § 893.13 offenses, the government did not address Jackson’s io- flupane argument on the merits....
...In conducting our analysis here, we proceed in three steps. First, we identify the criteria that ACCA uses to define a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Second, we ana- lyze the outer bounds of the elements that would have satisfied Fla. Stat. § 893.13’s requirements for a cocaine-related conviction at the time of each of Jackson’s convictions. And third, we compare the results of the first two steps to see whether § 893.13’s “elements ‘necessarily entail one of the types of conduct’” set forth in ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.” Shular v....
...se that involved only ioflupane has not involved a federally “con- trolled substance” for purposes of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). B. At the times of Jackson’s cocaine-related prior offenses for which he sustained convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13, the cocaine-related activity § 893.13 criminalized categorically included activity involving ioflupane. Having identified the components of a “serious drug of- fense,” we next consider the elements of Jackson’s prior state co- caine-related offenses under Fla. Stat. § 893.13....
...21-13963 Opinion of the Court 15 conduct at the third step of our analysis to ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.” With this understanding in mind, we turn to the elements of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 at the times of Jackson’s convictions. In 1998 and 2004, § 893.13(1)(a) prohibited, as relevant here, the sale of or pos- session with intent to sell a “controlled substance,” as defined in Schedules I through V, Fla....
...d substance” element. See id. Take the example we pointed to in Guillen: Florida courts have held that possession of marijuana is the same crime as possession of hashish, since “marijuana and 4 The Supreme Court has discussed other elements of § 893.13(1)(a), but they are not relevant here. See Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 784 (noting that under Section 893.13(1)(a), “‘knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element,’ but lack of such knowledge ‘is an affirmative defense’”) (quoting Fla....
...ioflupane otherwise qualifies as “[c]ocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of cocaine or ecgonine.” So the amendment confirms that, before the addition of the emphasized phrase—when Jackson committed his § 893.13 offenses—Florida law criminalized sale and possession of ioflupane as a part of its prohibition on the sale and possession of “[c]ocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereo- isomers, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of co- caine or ecgonine.” Fla. Stat. § 893.03(2)(a)(4). Because § 893.03(2)(a)(4) identified “means,” not “ele- ments,” in 1998 and 2004, when Jackson was convicted under § 893.13(a)(1), a cocaine-related conviction could have been based on any one of these several formulations, including sale of or posses- sion with intent to distribute ioflupane. C. At the times of Jackson’s prior cocaine-related state convic- tions, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(a)(1)’s controlled-substance element was broader for cocaine-related offenses than ACCA’s “seri- ous drug offense” definition, so Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 co- caine-related convictions do not qualify as “serious...
...essed the firearm for which he was convicted here. We’ve also sorted out the breadth USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 18 of 23 18 Opinion of the Court 21-13963 of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) at the times of Jackson’s cocaine-related convictions. Now, we must compare the two to see whether Jack- son’s prior cocaine-related convictions qualify as “serious drug of- fense[s]” under ACCA. Everyone agrees that Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 § 893.13 co- caine-related convictions satisfy the first and third criteria of a “se- rious drug offense”: they involve sale or possession with intent to distribute, and they are punishable by at least ten years’ imprison- ment....
...Ct. 779, require the conclusion that Jackson’s prior cocaine-related convictions qualify as “serious drug offense[s].” We disagree. We start with the two Smith cases and Shular. As relevant here, in Smith 2014, we considered whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) was a “serious drug offense” under ACCA’s § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), given that § 893.13(1) included no mens rea element on the illicit nature of the controlled substance....
...elements ‘neces- sarily entail one of the types of conduct’ identified in § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).” Id. at 784 (emphasis omitted). Later in 2020, the same issue came before us again. Relying on Shular (and Smith 2014), we confirmed that Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)’s lack of a mens rea element does not prevent it from qualifying as a “serious drug of- fense.” Smith 2020, 983 F.3d at 1223. The government argues that the two Smith cases bind us under the prior-panel-precedent rule (and Sh...
...preme Court precedent) to conclude that any conviction— USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 20 of 23 20 Opinion of the Court 21-13963 including Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 ones—under § 893.13(1) satisfies the definition of “serious drug offense” in § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)....
...Act’s drug Schedules governs under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s definition of “serious drug offense” was not even a twinkle in our eyes or in those of the Supreme Court in the Smith cases and in Shular. Ra- ther, in those three cases, the issue was whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)’s lack of a mens rea element precluded it from qualifying as a “serious drug offense.” At most, the Smith panels and the Su- preme Court in Shular implicitly assumed all the other criteria to satisfy the federal definition of “serious drug offense” were met. But “assumptions are not holdings,” Brown v....
...cases finding that sub silentio holdings, unstated assumptions, and implicit rejections of arguments by prior panel are not binding cir- cuit precedent). Here, to the extent that Shular and Smith 2020 bind us to reach any conclusion, it’s that Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 § 893.13(1) cocaine-related convictions cannot qualify as “serious drug of- fense[s]” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)....
...2022) (“McNeill does not prohibit us from considering changes to federal law for the purposes of the ACCA.”). In short, no prior precedent precludes our ruling today. IV. Because Jackson’s cocaine-related § 893.13 offenses do not qualify as “serious drug offenses” under ACCA, we vacate Jackson’s sentence and remand to the district court for sentencing without the ACCA enhancement. VACATED and REMANDED.
Copy

United States v. Eugene Jackson (11th Cir. 2022).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

that the cocaine-related conduct that Fla. Stat. § 893.13 pro- hibited when both of Jackson’s cocaine-related
Copy

Signature Pharmacy, Inc. v. Soares, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57714, 2010 WL 2330279

...Notwithstanding lengthy statutory (and inapposite regulatory) string citations, Wright's affidavit never explicitly identifies the statute(s) (much less the elements of any crime) that Plaintiffs allegedly violated. Distilled to its essence, however, the affidavit charges Plaintiffs with violating FLA. STAT. § 893.13, the Florida statute which makes it unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. [31] Of course, these substances *1291 may be legitimately prescribed for medical uses, so the statute creates an express exemption for, inter alia, doctors/practitioners and pharmacists. See FLA. STAT. § 893.13(9)....
...itioner, so long as it is done in good faith and in the course of the pharmacist's professional practice. [33] There is no contention in the affidavit that Signature violated this statute. Instead, Wright's affidavit apparently focuses on FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(a), which prohibits a practitioner from prescribing a controlled substance under circumstances that amount to fraud or deceit....
...ap (which the Court has simply assumed was issued without probable cause) are omitted from the affidavit, there is scant basis to conclude that Signature's principals knowingly assisted or otherwise conspired with practitioners to violate FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(a)....
...The purpose of a warrant is to uncover evidence of an alleged crime within the premises to be searched. Here, Wright was ostensibly looking for evidence that Signature knowingly facilitated the writing of bad faith prescriptions by doctors in violation of FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(a)....
...which is evidence of a criminal violation of the laws of the State of Florida, to-wit: [half-page string cite to Florida and federal statutes]. (Docs. 129-5 at 1-3 and 129-6 at 15-16). Nothing in the warrants explained that the items sought were those related to a violation of FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(a)....
...the case of anabolic steroids, may lead to physical damage." Id. [32] Wright conveniently omits any reference to this section of the statute. [33] Wright also omits any reference to this statute. [34] While Wright does at least reference FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(a), he omits any reference to an applicable safe harbor in subsection (8)(b), which provides: "If the prescribing practitioner wrote a prescription or multiple prescriptions for a controlled substance for the patient ....
...y to treat the patient. . . that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the prescribing practitioner violated subparagraph (a)1., but may be considered with other competent evidence in determining [whether a violation occurred]." FLA. STAT. § 893.13(8)(b) (emphasis added)....
Copy

Hector Colon v. State of Florida, 199 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8334, 2016 WL 3065685

...Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court would sentence appellant on all counts to this amount of prison time. For each of the four cases, the offenses, statutory máximums, agreed sentences, and jail credits are as follows: Case 10-7485 Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance; § 893.13(6)(A); Third Degree Felony; 5 year max....
Copy

City of North Miami Beach v. Berrio, 64 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8041, 2011 WL 2135449

...Hernandez searched the vehicle, a 2005 Infiniti Q 56 SUV, and discovered marijuana within a closed zip-lock bag inside a plastic grocery bag. Hernandez arrested the claimant and charged him with possessing a third degree felony amount of marijuana pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

Vickers v. State, 875 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10092, 2004 WL 1530928

...Defendant, Lawrence James Vickers [‘Vickers”], appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. Vickers alleged in his motion that he was sentenced in three cases to seven and one-half years as a habitual felony offender for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997). Vickers argues that the habitual felony offender statute does not authorize habitu-alization for a violation of section 893.13. A habitual felony offender sentence is authorized only when the felony for which a defendant is convicted and one of the two required prior convictions is not a violation of section 893.13....
Copy

McGee v. State, 509 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2044, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 332

OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review State v. McGee, 494 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), which held that possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis violates section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1985), and is a third-degree felony....
...V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the question . in the affirmative and approve the district court decision. The relevant facts reflect that the petitioner, Mandell C. McGee, was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to sell, contrary to section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...State, 346 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In Franklin , the defendant was charged with possession with intent to sell cannabis. He was adjudicated guilty of the offense and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal construed section 893.13(l)(f) to require an information to specifically charge possession of more than five grams of cannabis (the statute has since been amended to twenty grams) for the offense to be a felony....
...court cannot simply ignore the words “intent to sell.” To do so would unjustifiably abridge the statutes and usurp the power of the legislature to define what is or is not a crime. The mere possession of a “controlled substance” is a crime. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Cannabis is a controlled substance. § 893.03(l)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (1985). One who possesses 20 grams or more is guilty of a third degree felony. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Possession of “not more than 20 grams” is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.-13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Possession of “not more than 20 grams” is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.13(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1985). On the other hand, possession with intent to sell cannabis is a third degree felony. §§ 893.13(l)(a); 893.-03(l)(c)3, and 893.13(l)(a)2, Fla.Stat....
Copy

Jamarol D. Fletcher v. State of Florida, 168 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...We have Sunday School, church school every Sunday, and then we have religious services of church services every Sunday. No other evidence was offered regarding the activities of the church. Appellant’s trial took place approximately six months after appellant’s arrest. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, 2 manufacture or deliver, “a controlled substa...
...h on Sunday mornings in church attire at regular times and when photographs of the church and a church sign listing the times and days of worship were admitted as evidence). This Court has held similarly with regard to a companion statute, section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), which prohibits the sale, manufacture, delivery or possession of contraband within 1,000 feet of a school....
Copy

Seabrook v. State, 762 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8530, 2000 WL 904407

UPON MOTION FOR REHEARING PETERSON, J. The appellant has moved for rehearing requesting that we withdraw our previous decision in Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) in which the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e)1,....
Copy

Willis v. State, 762 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8527, 2000 WL 904907

...which is a misdemeanor offense. Because violation of section 320.02 is a criminal offense, its violation justified the search and legitimized the subsequent discovery of contraband in Willis’s vehicle. 4 AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Brown v. State, 545 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1645, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3724, 1989 WL 73153

PER CURIAM. The defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) in violation of Florida Statute 893.13; trafficking in cocaine by possessing 28 or more grams (but less than 200) in violation of Florida Statute 893.135; and possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis in violation of Florida Statute 893.13....
Copy

State v. Hayes, 546 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1637, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3817, 1989 WL 73765

...The state subsequently filed an information charging *88 the appellee, as an adult, for introduction of contraband into a correction facility in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), and possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Antonio R. Hernandez v. State of Florida, 141 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...a state correctional facility is illegal because the contraband he possessed was a controlled substance. The trial court concluded that the sentence is legal because possession of contraband in a state correctional facility is not a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...ed of possession of contraband in a state correctional facility in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes. The contraband possessed by Hernandez was cannabis, and as a result, he was also convicted of possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...Here, Hernandez contends that his HFO sentence is illegal because the possession of contraband conviction does not meet the criterion in subparagraph (1)(a)3. of the HFO statute. That subparagraph provides in pertinent part that a defendant may not be sentenced as an HFO for an offense that is “a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” § 775.084(1)(a)3., Fla....
...relies primarily on Hughes v. State, 850 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), in which this court held that the defendant was improperly sentenced as an HFO based upon his prior conviction for obtaining a controlled substance by fraud in violation of section 893.13(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes. The court reasoned that this offense required an intent to possess a controlled substance and “is therefore, on its face, a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.” Id....
...2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), and Leftwich v. State, 589 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), but those cases did not address the specific issue raised by Hernandez. 3 possession of a controlled substance and is included within section 893.13”). Hughes is distinguishable. Unlike the defendant in Hughes, who had been convicted of violating a specific provision in section 893.13, Hernandez was convicted of violating a provision in chapter 944, Florida Statutes....
...The fact that the contraband possessed by Hernandez was a controlled substance is immaterial for purposes of the HFO statute because the statute does not prohibit HFO sentences for all crimes involving the possession of a controlled substance; rather, the statute only prohibits HFO sentences for crimes listed in section 893.13 that involve the purchase or possession of a controlled substance. See Baldwin v. State, 684 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming HFO sentence for tampering with evidence conviction because, even though evidence tampered with was cocaine, defendant’s conviction “is not under section 893.13, Florida Statutes, but instead is under the tampering statute, section 918.13, Florida Statutes”). Because Hernandez was not sentenced as an HFO for an offense listed in section 893.13, his sentence is not illegal and the trial court correctly denied his rule 3.800(a) motion....
Copy

Paul David Wilder v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...In this appeal, defendant Wilder challenges his convictions. While defendant raises two issues on appeal, we find merit in only one: his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for sale of oxycodone within 1,000 feet of a church. We write solely to address this issue. Section 893.13(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2011), makes it a first degree felony to “sell ....
Copy

State v. Demps, 789 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10652, 2001 WL 848782

PER CURIAM. The state appeals the trial court’s dismissal of count one of the information charging Brian Demps with violating section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999)....
Copy

Durham v. State, 738 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10112, 1999 WL 550451

...aximum for this offense and therefore only sentenced Durham to 90 days in jail, plus two years community control, plus drug offender probation for whatever time was left for the five year maximum time limit. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ, concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla. Stat. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Lloyd Anthony Davis v. State of Florida (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...the postconviction court to consider the motion on the merits. Facts Appellant was convicted of sale of cocaine (Count 1) and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver (Count 2), under sections 893.03 and 893.13, Florida Statutes (2017)....
...without opinion. See Davis v. State, 299 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). In 2024, Appellant filed another Rule 3.800(a) motion in which he argued his sentences were illegal because both his instant offenses and prior felonies were violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...But certain drug offenses cannot be used to qualify a defendant for HFO status. See id. § 775.084(1)(a)3. (“The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a 2 violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.”); see also Ray v....
...sentence for the sale of cocaine conviction.”). But, as conceded by the State on appeal, Count 2 was related to the possession of a controlled substance and therefore would not qualify for habitualization. See id. (“When a defendant is being sentenced for a violation of section 893.13 ....
Copy

Terry v. State, 14 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10366, 2009 WL 2243812

...The State's information titled the charge as "Solicitation to Purchase Cocaine," but alleged that the defendant "did unlawfully command, encourage, hire or request another person, to-wit: Detective J. Riche to deliver to him a controlled substance, to-wit: Cocaine, contrary to F.S. 893.03(2)(a)(4), F.S. 893.13(2)(a) and F.S. 777.04(2)." (emphasis added). Section 893.13(2)(a), to which the information refers, addresses the purchase of controlled substances, while section 893.13(1)(a), to which the information does not refer, addresses the sale, manufacture, or delivery of controlled substances....
Copy

Scaife v. State, 764 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9436, 2000 WL 1036183

...tion 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (1999). Seaife argues that prosecution on this charge violates the prohibition against double jeopardy and is in contravention of his due process rights. Seaife was charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), and also with violating section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1999), through an information filed on April 27, 2000....
Copy

Valentin v. State, 775 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9438, 2000 WL 1034624

...enses committed in the course of one criminal transaction requires proof of an element that the other does not. See Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla.1997). The offense of delivery of cocaine requires a knowing intent to deliver cocaine. See § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). The offense of trafficking delivery of cocaine requires a knowing intent to deliver more than twenty-eight but less than 200 grams of cocaine. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.a, Fla....
Copy

State v. Wright, 65 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11761, 2011 WL 3111874

...Kalogeropolous, 758 So.2d 110, 111 (Fla. 2000). The state may rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence to meet its burden. See State v. Jaramillo, 951 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The state charged Wright with attempted delivery of cocaine. Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is "unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver ......
Copy

M.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7895, 1993 WL 277185

3d DCA 1993), this court held constitutional section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes (1991). In my opinion
Copy

Davie v. State, 658 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7971, 1995 WL 437257

PER CURIAM. The appellant, Margaret Lee Davie, challenges the trial court’s judgments and sentences imposed upon her after a jury found her guilty of possession of cocaine contrary *175 to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and possession of drug paraphernalia contrary to section 893.147, Florida Statutes (1993)....
Copy

State v. Delgado, 92 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3023164, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11959

SUAREZ, J. The State appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress where the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), and unlawfully and feloniously manufacturing cannabis with the intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007). We reverse. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), and unlawfully and feloniously manufacturing cannabis with the intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....
...The defendant then gave a written statement. Other officers came into the house and proceeded to take pictures of the grow house. No weapons were drawn and no handcuffs were ever placed on the defendant. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), and unlawfully and feloniously manufacturing cannabis with the intent to sell, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....
Copy

Soirelus v. State, 698 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8501, 1997 WL 413803

...In this regard, unlike the standard jury instruction for possession of a controlled substance, 3 the underlying charge in Chicone , the standard trafficking instruction given in this case contains the element of scienter: Trafficking in Cocaine F.S. § 893.135(l)(b)lc Before you can find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine in a quantity of *575 400 grams but less than 150 kilograms, the test must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:, 1....
...The standard instruction given by the trial court in the instant case was sufficient because paragraph 4 of the trafficking instruction establishes that the element of scienter is required in order to convict a defendant for the crime of trafficking in cocaine. AFFIRMED. GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.135(l)(b)lc, Fla.Stat....
...defense, pursuant to Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983). Claims 1 and 3 lack merit, and claim 2 was not properly preserved for appellate review. .Drug Abuse-Possession in F.S. § 893.13(l)(f) Before you can find the defendant guilty of (crime charged), the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1....
Copy

In the Interest of N.H., 582 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7518, 1991 WL 134070

...We reverse on the authority of State v. Roland, 577 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). *183 In Roland, we held that section 893.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes does not apply to kindergartens or preschools. Since appellant was arrested and charged with violation of section 893.13(l)(e) by delivering cocaine within 1,000 feet of a kindergarten/preschool, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Upon remand, the trial court is directed to vacate the judgment of conviction, dismiss the petition and discharge appellant on the charged violation of section 893.13(l)(e)....
Copy

Ernest Lawson v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...We thus affirm. Appellant was stopped and arrested for possession of what appeared to be “Molly.” A crime lab tested and identified the substance as “Dimethylpentylone.” The State charged appellant with possession of a substituted cathinone pursuant to section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2023)....
...is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)). Controlled Substance Statutes Appellant was charged with possession of a substituted cathinone in violation of section 893.13(6). Section 893.13(6)(a) states: A person may not be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or...
... constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. A person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...mely raise the defect by motion to dismiss constitutes a waiver of such insufficiency.” Cantanese v. State, 251 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The information charged appellant with a crime, possession of substituted cathinone. See § 893.13(6), Fla....
...rs violation occurred. 8 Conclusion The State proved that appellant possessed a substituted cathinone, a Schedule I controlled substance under section 893.03(1), and violated section 893.13(6)(a)....
Copy

Woods v. State, 509 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1791, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9524

...The other issues raised by defendant have been considered and found without merit. Thus, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, his sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing. Conviction AFFIRMED; REMANDED for resentencing. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 893.135(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1985). For conviction of the offense of "trafficking in cocaine,” the amount of the substance must be 28 grams or more. . § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). . § 893.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Lee v. State, 530 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3177, 1988 WL 74799

of cocaine, both of which are violations of section 893.-13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). Lee challenges
Copy

Moore v. State, 172 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10951, 2015 WL 4464689

BILBREY, J. Barry Layne Moore appeals his judgment and sentence, entered after the jury returned a guilty verdict at trial, in Count I for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and in Count II for selling or dispensing a prescription drug without being furnished a prescription, in violation of section 465.015(2)(c), Florida Statutes....
...Therefore, the judgment and sentence for Count II, for violation of section 465.015(2)(c), Florida Statutes, is reversed and remanded for further proceedings on that count only as to the allegations of selling the Oxycodone. The judgment and sentence for Count I, for violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is affirmed....
Copy

Washington v. State, 528 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1749, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3182, 1988 WL 74795

two counts of sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant
Copy

Wilson v. State, 530 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1756, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3347, 1988 WL 74797

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant was convicted of five counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and five counts of sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1985)....
Copy

Linton v. State, 530 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1749, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3184, 1988 WL 74780

sale or delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.-13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1985). Each count
Copy

Cook v. State, 530 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1753, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3183, 1988 WL 74800

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant was convicted of one count of possession of cannabis with intent to sell and one count of sale of cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1986)....
Copy

State v. Bryant S. Rivera, 249 So. 3d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

possession of alprazolam, a third-degree felony. § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). The trial court withheld
Copy

J.J.N. v. State, 877 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9711

...esis of inno- *809 eence.” Pagan, 880 So.2d at 803 (citation omitted). In order to convict an individual of the offense of possession of cannabis, the state must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive possession of the contraband. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Royal, 763 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9019, 2000 WL 991815

appellee with the sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes. On June 21, 1999,
Copy

McIntyre v. State, 564 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 1990 WL 98752

...See also State v. Burton, 555 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm both convictions, but quash the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. SENTENCE QUASHED and CAUSE REMANDED. W. SHARP, GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l and 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Conley, 98 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11683, 2012 WL 2914033

...ce or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is: (a) Plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle.... Following the stop, on March 9, 2011, Conley was charged with possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010); evidence tampering, in violation of section 918.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010); possession of marijuana, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a) and (b); and obstruction of a law enforcement officer without violence, in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2010)....
Copy

Jiles v. State, 117 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11221, 2013 WL 3716949

...In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the convictions and sentences. Our review of the record, however, indicates a possible sentencing error arising from the mandatory minimum three-year term imposed in L.T. No. 12-654 in connection with count I, Sale/Delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church. Compare § 893.13(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2011) (not requiring a mandatory term when the sale is within 1000 feet of a physical place of worship), with § 893.13(l)(c), Fla....
Copy

Perkins v. State, 117 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3724774, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11298

...ment on each of the first-degree felonies concurrently with concurrent terms of 60 months’ imprisonment on each of the third-degree felonies. Because each of the first-degree felonies required the imposition of a three-year minimum mandatory term, § 893.13(l)(c)(l), Fla....
Copy

Paccione v. State, 676 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7599, 1996 WL 397267

SHAHOOD, Judge. James Paccione pled nolo contendere to the charges of possession of marijuana with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and simple possession of the same marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his previously-filed motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy violations....
Copy

Smith v. State, 762 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8937, 2000 WL 966099

church with intent to sell, a violation of section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1999). We reverse
Copy

Sparkman v. State, 528 So. 2d 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1673, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3033, 1988 WL 72233

information with the sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1985), possession
Copy

State v. Teague, 275 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

of twenty grams of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2017). *829" Section
Copy

Roddy v. State, 658 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7487, 1995 WL 407426

the same date, a third-degree felony under section 893.13(6)(a) (Count II); and possession of a firearm
Copy

Beckles v. State, 92 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11123, 2012 WL 2814121

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which a federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Gordon v. United States Attorney Gen., 861 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2017).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12222, 2017 WL 2918835

...cuit Judge: Petitioner Lannie Gordon (“Gordon”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board” or “BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his conviction for violating Florida Statute § 893.13(l)(a) constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C....
...We grant his petition, and reject the Board’s finding of remova-bility. I. Gordon is a citizen of Guyana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1985. On October 23, 2014, Gordon pleaded guilty to two counts of Sale or Delivery of Cannabis in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(l)(a). The two counts read in pertinent part: 1. On or about May 15, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a)... 3. On or about May 21, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a)......
...§ 1101 (a)(43)(B), and described in section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act, which included a drug trafficking crime as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). The IJ found Gordon removable as charged, concluding that Mr. Gordon’s convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13(l)(a) constitute illicit trafficking as defined in 8 U.S.C....
...“We review de novo whether a conviction qualifies as an ‘aggravated felony.’ ” Accardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 634 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). To assess whether Gordon’s state conviction was an aggravated felony conviction, the Board first had to decide whether § 893.13(l)(a) is divisible and thus subject to the modified categorical approach instead of the categorical approach in comparing the elements of § 893.13(l)(a) with the elements of the corresponding aggravated felony of “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” Spaho v....
...used in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.” Id. (quoting Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2281 ). *1319 In determining divisibility, we focus primarily on the statutory text. See United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1346 (11th Cir. 2014). Section 893.13(l)(a) provides in relevant part that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” The text delineates six discrete alternative elements: sale, de...
...Thus, the question at hand is whether — using the modified categorical approach — the Board properly determined that Gordon’s conviction constitutes an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony. Some of the alternative elements set forth in § 893.13(l)(a) involve “illicit trafficking” and some do not....
...Dec., at 541); see also Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 53 , 127 S.Ct. 625 , 166 L.Ed. 2d 462 (2006) (“ ‘[Trafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing.”). Accordingly, in Spaho , we explained that “[t]wo of the alternative elements of § 893.13(l)(a), sale and possession with intent to sell, are inherently commercial and qualify under the definition of an illicit trafficking aggravated felony while the other four alternatives may not be commercial and may not qualify.” 837 F.3d at 1179 . The United States Attorney General argues that the disposition of this case is dictated by our determination in Spaho that a conviction for “sale” under § 893.13(l)(a) qualifies as an aggravated felony. We disagree. Gordon was convicted for “unlawfully selling] or delivering], for monetary consideration, a controlled substance ... contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a).” (emphasis added)....
...Under Florida law, “sale and delivery of controlled substances are separate offenses with separate definitions.” State v. Mena, 471 So.2d 1297, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Delivery, unlike sale, does not include an element of consideration, see id., and thus a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under § 893.13(l)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony....
...ject the Board’s finding of re-movability. PETITION GRANTED. . The counts are marked "1” and "3” because that same day Gordon was also convicted for two counts of Possession of Marijuana (not more than 20 grams) in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(b)....
Copy

Lannie Gordon v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2017).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Petitioner Lannie Gordon (“Gordon”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board” or “BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his conviction for violating Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C....
...I. Gordon is a citizen of Guyana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1985. On October 23, 2014, Gordon pleaded guilty to two counts of Sale or Delivery of Cannabis in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a)....
...The two counts read in pertinent part: 1. On or about May 15, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) . . . 3. On or about May 21, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) ....
...ing, on January 22, 2015, the Department 1 The counts are marked “1” and “3” because that same day Gordon was also convicted for two counts of Possession of Marijuana (not more than 20 grams) in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(b). 2 Case: 15-13846 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 Page: 3 of 8 of Homeland Security served Gordon with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) for removal proceedings....
...§ 1101(a)(43)(B), and described in section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act, which included a drug trafficking crime as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The IJ found Gordon removable as charged, concluding that Mr. Gordon’s convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) constitute illicit trafficking as defined in 8 U.S.C....
...fies as an ‘aggravated felony.’” Accardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 634 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). To assess whether Gordon’s state conviction was an aggravated felony conviction, the Board first had to decide whether § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible and thus subject to the modified categorical approach instead of the categorical approach in comparing the elements of § 893.13(1)(a) with the elements of the corresponding aggravated felony of “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” Spaho v....
...ed in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.” Id. (quoting Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2281). In determining divisibility, we focus primarily on the statutory text. See United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1346 (11th Cir. 2014). Section 893.13(1)(a) provides in relevant part that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” The text delineates six discrete alternative elements: sale,...
...837 F.3d at 1178. Thus, the question at hand is whether—using the modified categorical approach—the Board properly determined that Gordon’s conviction constitutes an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony. Some of the alternative elements set forth in § 893.13(1)(a) involve “illicit trafficking” and some do not....
...47, 53, 127 6 Case: 15-13846 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 Page: 7 of 8 S. Ct. 625, 166 L. Ed. 2d 462 (2006) (“‘[T]rafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing.”). Accordingly, in Spaho, we explained that “[t]wo of the alternative elements of § 893.13(1)(a), sale and possession with intent to sell, are inherently commercial and qualify under the definition of an illicit trafficking aggravated felony while the other four alternatives may not be commercial and may not qualify.” 837 F.3d at 1179. The United States Attorney General argues that the disposition of this case is dictated by our determination in Spaho that a conviction for “sale” under § 893.13(1)(a) qualifies as an aggravated felony. We disagree. Gordon was convicted for “unlawfully sell[ing] or deliver[ing], for monetary consideration, a controlled substance . . . contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a).” (emphasis added)....
...separate offenses with separate definitions.” State v. Mena, 471 So. 2d 1297, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Delivery, unlike sale, does not include an element of consideration, see id., and thus a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under § 893.13(1)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony. The modified categorical approach only allows courts to “to examine a limited class of documents to determine which of a statute’s alternative elements formed the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction.” Descamps, 133 S....
Copy

Lannie Gordon v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2017).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Petitioner Lannie Gordon (“Gordon”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board” or “BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his conviction for violating Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C....
...I. Gordon is a citizen of Guyana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1985. On October 23, 2014, Gordon pleaded guilty to two counts of Sale or Delivery of Cannabis in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a)....
...The two counts read in pertinent part: 1. On or about May 15, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) . . . 3. On or about May 21, 2014 in Lee County Florida, did unlawfully sell or deliver, for monetary consideration, a controlled substance, to-wit: Cannabis, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) ....
...ing, on January 22, 2015, the Department 1 The counts are marked “1” and “3” because that same day Gordon was also convicted for two counts of Possession of Marijuana (not more than 20 grams) in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(b). 2 Case: 15-13846 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 Page: 3 of 8 of Homeland Security served Gordon with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) for removal proceedings....
...§ 1101(a)(43)(B), and described in section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act, which included a drug trafficking crime as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The IJ found Gordon removable as charged, concluding that Mr. Gordon’s convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) constitute illicit trafficking as defined in 8 U.S.C....
...fies as an ‘aggravated felony.’” Accardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 634 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). To assess whether Gordon’s state conviction was an aggravated felony conviction, the Board first had to decide whether § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible and thus subject to the modified categorical approach instead of the categorical approach in comparing the elements of § 893.13(1)(a) with the elements of the corresponding aggravated felony of “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” Spaho v....
...ed in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.” Id. (quoting Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2281). In determining divisibility, we focus primarily on the statutory text. See United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1346 (11th Cir. 2014). Section 893.13(1)(a) provides in relevant part that “a person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” The text delineates six discrete alternative elements: sale,...
...837 F.3d at 1178. Thus, the question at hand is whether—using the modified categorical approach—the Board properly determined that Gordon’s conviction constitutes an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony. Some of the alternative elements set forth in § 893.13(1)(a) involve “illicit trafficking” and some do not....
...47, 53, 127 6 Case: 15-13846 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 Page: 7 of 8 S. Ct. 625, 166 L. Ed. 2d 462 (2006) (“‘[T]rafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing.”). Accordingly, in Spaho, we explained that “[t]wo of the alternative elements of § 893.13(1)(a), sale and possession with intent to sell, are inherently commercial and qualify under the definition of an illicit trafficking aggravated felony while the other four alternatives may not be commercial and may not qualify.” 837 F.3d at 1179. The United States Attorney General argues that the disposition of this case is dictated by our determination in Spaho that a conviction for “sale” under § 893.13(1)(a) qualifies as an aggravated felony. We disagree. Gordon was convicted for “unlawfully sell[ing] or deliver[ing], for monetary consideration, a controlled substance . . . contrary to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a).” (emphasis added)....
...separate offenses with separate definitions.” State v. Mena, 471 So. 2d 1297, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Delivery, unlike sale, does not include an element of consideration, see id., and thus a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under § 893.13(1)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony. The modified categorical approach only allows courts to “to examine a limited class of documents to determine which of a statute’s alternative elements formed the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction.” Descamps, 133 S....
Copy

D.A.H. v. State, 718 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8169, 1998 WL 380512

suppress. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1987).
Copy

State v. Hanna, 582 So. 2d 157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6682, 1991 WL 120796

...h are based on two identical informations for two incidents which occurred on the same date. We reverse. Each information charged appellee with two counts, Count I for unlawful sale, delivery or possession with intent to sell cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989); Count II for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1989)....
Copy

Marrone v. State, 582 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6703, 1991 WL 125751

...uested. Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Second, there is simply no merit to Mar-rone’s contention that his thirty-year sentence for trafficking in cocaine exceeds the statutory maximum for that offense. See §§ 775.082(3)(b), 893.135(l)(b), Fla.Stat....
...urther proceedings consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Marrone contends, and certain of his exhibits suggest, that he was convicted and sentenced for three counts of delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, a violation of section 893.13(l)(c), Flor *1230 ida Statutes (1989), although his plea agreement contemplated that these charges would be dropped....
Copy

Bernard L. Ash v. State, 200 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10160, 2016 WL 3570113

...Sufficient evidence exists to withstand a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal when, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (defining the charged crime) provides: [A] person may not sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance...
...As used in this section, the term "real property comprising a public housing facility" means real property, as defined in s. 421.03(12), of a public corporation created as a housing authority pursuant to part I of chapter 421. § 893.13(1)(f), Fla....
Copy

State v. Diloreto, 600 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 115787

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Ariel Raab of Raab & Raab, P.C., Kingston, N.Y., for appellee. STONE, Judge. We affirm an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of trafficking in oxycodone as not stating a crime punishable, as charged, under Florida Statute Section 893.135(1)(c)3 (1989)....
...The state concedes that the controlled substance is not heroin, morphine, opium, or any salt, isomer, or salt of an isomer, of morphine or opium; nor is it manufactured from any such substance. The trial court correctly recognized that trafficking under section 893.135(1)(c)3 *26 (1989) [2] does not encompass all controlled substances listed in sections 893.03(1)(b) or (2)(a), Florida Statutes, but only those specified by its terms....
...ng of the statute. However, criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Arthur, 391 So.2d at 339. We note, as recognized by the trial court in the record, that the possession of the drugs in question may still be charged under another section. See § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Cain v. State, 481 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 150, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5796

...217 (1932); Rodriguez v. State, 472 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED. COBB, C.J., and UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Violation of section 893.13(l)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (1983). . Violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1983).
Copy

Fulton v. State, 629 So. 2d 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 107, 1994 WL 3460

THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1993). . Section 893.13<l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1993)
Copy

Rivero v. State, 573 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 661, 1991 WL 8420

...trial judge found a persistent pattern, we vacate the sentence and remand for the purposes of clarification. Brown v. State, 570 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). VACATE SENTENCE; REMAND. GRIFFIN, J., concurs. GOSHORN, J., dissents without opinion. . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Robinson v. State, 685 So. 2d 997 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8, 1997 WL 1829

PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment and sentence with the exception of a special condition in the probation order imposing a fee of $100 “pursuant to section 893.13(4)(b),Florida Statutes (1995).” 1 We vacate this condition of the written probation order for the reason that the costs were not orally imposed at the sentencing hearing....
Copy

Lyon v. State, 591 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 16, 1992 WL 279

cocaine within one thousand feet of a school, section 893.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), appellant contests
Copy

Gilchrist v. State, 784 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 832, 2001 WL 76745

...of cocaine on a common object or implement in possession of an accused, where the object or implement is designed and widely used for other legitimate purposes, is insufficient to support a felony conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

State v. Vola, 591 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 164426

...Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant was charged with, and convicted of, purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school contrary to section 893.13(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...4th DCA 1991), State v. Baxter, 581 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and State v. Ross, 447 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 456 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1984). At issue is the inconsistency, or at a minimum, the tension, between two Florida Statutes. Section 893.13(1)(e)1 mandates a three year term of imprisonment when cocaine is purchased within 1,000 feet of a school. By contrast, section 397.12 authorizes the trial court to place a defendant in a drug treatment program rather than prison. *249 In deciding to reverse, we considered whether we should certify the following question to the supreme court: Does section 893.13(1)(e)1 take precedence over section 397.12? Section 893.13(1)(e)1, states in pertinent part: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell ......
...Finally, it is significant that there exists no express indication that the Legislature intended section 397.12 to serve as an exception to section 775.087(2)(a)'s mandatory term of imprisonment. Ross, 447 So.2d at 1382-1383 (citations omitted). Ross is indistinguishable from this case. Section 893.13(1)(e)1 was added in 1989, thus it too is the later promulgated statute. In addition, the language of section 893.13(1)(e)1 is plain and unambiguous. Finally, there is no express indication that the legislature intended section 397.12 to serve as an exception to section 893.13(1)(e)1....
...Our decision sub judice also relies upon State v. Baxter , in support of its conclusion that the three year mandatory minimum should have been imposed. Baxter pled guilty to purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, (a violation of section *250 893.13(1)(e)1), the same offense involved here....
...On appeal, this court reversed summarily reasoning that "section 397.12 only relates to defendants who have been convicted of possessing illegal drugs." Thus, Baxter held that the three year mandatory minimum was required because the crime of purchasing cocaine did not fall within the purview of section 397.12, not because section 893.13(1)(e)1 took precedence over section 397.12. Baxter reached that conclusion by relying upon State v. Edwards, 456 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In Edwards, the Second District held that a defendant, convicted of trafficking in cocaine (a violation of section 893.135(1)(c)1 which carries a three year mandatory minimum), could not be sentenced to a drug treatment program pursuant to section 397.12 because the trial court's authority under that section is specifically limited to violations of section 893.13(1)(e) or (1)(f) relating to possession. The Edwards court reached the same conclusion by relying upon several canons of statutory construction to ascertain the legislative intent behind chapters 397 and 893. It did not recognize any conflict between sections 397.12 and 893.135(1)(c)1. Instead, it used statutory construction to narrow the apparently broad reach of section 397.12. However, in a special concurrence, then Judge Grimes noted that section 397.12 was in conflict with section 893.135(1)(c)1, and concluded that section 893.135(1)(c)1 controlled because it was the later enacted statute, thus reflecting a legislative intent to strengthen the penalties for large scale drug trafficking and because, as the majority had concluded, section 397.12 only applied to convictions under sections 893.13(1)(e) and (1)(f)....
Copy

Hay v. State, 79 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1095, 2012 WL 246465

...These consolidated cases [1] involving a husband and a wife are controlled by this court's recent decision in Mullis v. State, 79 So.3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In case number 2D10-1596, Karen Plevyak Hay, a/k/a Karen L. Hay, appeals her judgment and sentences for one count of drug trafficking, § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008), and six counts of obtaining a controlled substance by withholding information, § 893.13(7)(a)(8), Fla. Stat. (2007 & 2008), following her guilty plea. [2] In case number 2D10-1678, Robert Ronald Hay appeals his judgment and sentences for one count of drug trafficking, § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008), and twenty-three counts of obtaining a controlled substance by withholding information, § 893.13(7)(a)(8), Fla....
Copy

Braxton v. State, 519 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 302, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 317, 1988 WL 5103

...The appellant was apprehended after attempting to flee from the police. During the chase he was seen carrying a bag, later found in the immediate area, which contained sixty-eight smaller bags of cocaine. He was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine, a third degree felony, under section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...The trial court’s reason involving the amount of drugs has been held by this court to be a valid reason for departure in trafficking or conspiracy to traffic in contraband cases. See e.g., Irwin v. State, 479 So.2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 830 (Fla.1986). Section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1985), the trafficking statute, increases the length of a sentence in proportion to the amount of drugs. However, the appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(e) which does not contain a sentencing schedule related to the amount of drugs....
Copy

Solomon Chamu v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2022).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Opinion of the Court 3 § 893.13(6)(a). And fourteen years after that, he was ordered
Copy

Arnold v. State, 555 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 442, 1990 WL 5245

...We affirm appellant’s conviction for purchase of cocaine * on the authority of Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As in Blankenship we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question, which we deem to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida.
Copy

Cobb v. State, 555 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 452, 1990 WL 5248

...We affirm appellant’s conviction for purchase of cocaine * on the authority of Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As in Blankenship we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question, which we deem to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida.
Copy

Evans v. State, 555 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 460, 1990 WL 5246

...We affirm appellant’s conviction for purchase of cocaine * on the authority of Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As in Blankenship we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question, which we deem to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE *973 SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida.
Copy

Hamilton v. State, 555 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 456, 1990 WL 5229

...We affirm appellant’s conviction for purchase of cannabis * on the authority of Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). As in Blankenship we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question, which we deem to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida.
Copy

State v. McMillen, 113 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1068, 2013 WL 276006

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charges against Robert McMillen based on the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011)....
Copy

State v. H.D., 113 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 275583, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1080

LaROSE, Judge. The State appeals the dismissal of a possession of cocaine charge against H.D. after the trial court granted his motion to suppress evidence. See § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Tuttle v. State, 462 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12140, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 256

...IAM. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences; however, we note two irregularities in the written judgments which must be corrected. The defendant was convicted of two counts of delivery of cocaine, which is a second-degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). See § 893.03(2)(a)4. Yet, the written judgment on the first count of delivery of cocaine, Circuit Court Case No. 83-5873, incorrectly adjudicated defendant guilty of a third-degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)2. The written judgment on the other count of delivery of cocaine, Circuit Court Case No. 83-5874, incorrectly adjudicated defendant guilty under section 893.13(l)(a)2 instead of section 893.-13(l)(a)l....
Copy

State v. Jenkins, 596 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 321, 1992 WL 10155

...C OPINION ON MOTION TO STAY PER CURIAM. We have considered en banc whether to stay the issuance of a mandate in each of several opinions of this court involving sentences imposed by trial courts below the three-year mandatory minimum requirements of section 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (1989)....
Copy

Dolinger v. State, 661 So. 2d 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 305, 1995 WL 18715

...McCloud, 577 So.2d 939 (Fla.1991); see also section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1991). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief as to the double jeopardy claim but reverse and remand for resentencing. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(3)(a)(l) provides that it is unlawful for any person to "acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.” . Section 893.13(l)(f) provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person to “be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance."
Copy

Miller v. State, 751 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 301, 2000 WL 35836

...He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse. On September 3, 1998, the State filed an information charging Miller with one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997)....
Copy

Durant v. State, 763 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 36295

...Appellant was convicted of the sale of cocaine near a school, a first degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed thirty years, and of possession of cocaine, a third degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed five years. See § 893.13(1)(c)1., (6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Johnson, 106 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 758, 2013 WL 195376

PER CURIAM. The State appeals from the order dismissing the charge against Manuel Johnson for the sale or delivery of oxycodone on the ground that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional. We reverse on the basis of State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012) (rejecting constitutional challenges to section 893.13)....
Copy

Smith v. State, 555 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 205, 1990 WL 2408

...Because Smith’s scoresheet will not be altered by this reversal, since he will remain in the “any non-state prison sanction” bracket, we also affirm his sentence of five years probation for the sale offenses. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (1987); a second degree felony. . Section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), a third degree felony.
Copy

O'Hara v. State, 555 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 204, 1990 WL 2410

...We affirm in this cause, but certify to the Florida Supreme Court, as a question of great public importance, the same question certified in Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989): IS SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), CONSTITUTIONAL? DANIEL, C.J., and COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Copy

Bacchus v. State, 572 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 174, 1991 WL 2729

...Appellant was convicted on Count I of purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine on Count II, and sentenced to concurrent terms of two and one-half years’ imprisonment. Appellant concedes that his constitutional challenge to section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, has been mooted by Burch v....
Copy

Tremaine Driver v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Defendant knowingly possessed, sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or brought into Florida heroin. 2. The substance was heroin or a mixture containing heroin. 3. The heroin mixture containing heroin weighed 4 grams or more. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.7(a); § 893.135(1)(c)(1), Fla....
...Defendant sold, manufactured, delivered, purchased, or possessed with intent to sell, manufacture, deliver, or purchase a certain substance. 2. The substance was heroin. 3. Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.2; § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
...Appellant’s trafficking offense, as with many drug possession offenses, was essentially ongoing. Appellant was in violation of the law during the entire time he was in possession of a sufficient quantity of cocaine to constitute trafficking under section 893.135(1)(b)....
Copy

Henderson v. State, 630 So. 2d 224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 85, 1994 WL 7700

...earlier ease. That sentence is not challenged in this appeal. In case number 91-3197, she received 3 years’ probation for possession of cocaine. The 3-year term of probation is within the 5-year statutory maximum penalty for possession of cocaine. Section 893.13(l)(f), Fla....
Copy

State v. Lugo-Perez, 104 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 133082, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 450

PER CURIAM. We reverse the circuit court’s December 7, 2011, order dismissing Count 1 of the information against Appellee for possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida ■ Statutes (2011), and we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings....
Copy

Smith v. State, 77 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 154, 2012 WL 75140

...lea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitu-alize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.”). As to the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, see Maestas v....
Copy

May v. State, 77 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 179, 2012 WL 75148

...“A founded suspicion is one which has a factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer’s knowledge and experience.” Davis, 849 So.2d at 400 (citing Stevens, 354 So.2d at 1247 (emphasis added). 4 Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), makes it unlawful for any person to deliver a controlled substance to a person unless the delivery is pursuant to a valid prescription. Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), makes it unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription....
Copy

United States v. Chavar Alec Harrison (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Bates, 960 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The statute lists [the statutory alternatives] in the disjunctive, which indicates that they are elements in the al- ternative[.]”), with Cintron, 882 F.3d at 1388 (holding prior version of Fla. Stat. § 893.135(1)(c)1....
...We have previously recognized this distinc- tion and held statutes whose alternatives carry the same punish- ment as divisible. See, e.g., Spaho v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1172, 1177 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) divisible when the statute provided the same punishment for each alterna- tive)....
Copy

Williams v. State, 946 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 170, 2007 WL 57827

...ALTENBERND and CANADY, JJ., Concur. . In circuit court case number 04-CF-1850 (for an offense occurring on January 29, 2004), Williams entered a guilty plea to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a church in violation of section 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (2003), a first-degree felony. In circuit court case number 04-CF-2073 (for offenses occurring on February 2, 2004), Williams entered a guilty plea to the following three counts: (1) delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), a second-degree felony; (2) possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), a third-degree felony; and (3) possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), a second-degree felony. In circuit court case number 04-CF-4028 (for offenses occurring on January 20, 2004), Williams entered a guilty plea to the following two counts: (1) delivery of cocaine within 1000' of a church in violation of section 893.13(l)(e)(l), Florida Statutes (2003), a first-degree felony, and (2) possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), a third-degree felony....
Copy

Keller v. State, 946 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 184, 2007 WL 57270

...Blair, 214 *1235 F.3d 690 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Blum, 753 F.2d 999 (11th Cir.1985). It is unlawful to possess a controlled substance except as authorized by chapter 893, Florida Statutes, the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act (“Act”). § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

S.N. v. State, 463 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 148, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11914

...I and sale or delivery of cannabis 2 in Count II. He argues that his adjudication under Count II was erroneous because the record only sustains a finding he possessed cannabis with the intent to sell it. These acts constitute a criminal charge under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983), 3 but these are not the ones with which he was charged by the state in its petition for delinquency....
...lower court for the purpose of considering whether commitment is proper on Count I alone, since the more serious offense charged in Count II has been eliminated. REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART. DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). . § 893.13(l)(a)(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). . Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Except as authorized by this chapter and Chapter 499, It is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance....
Copy

Travis J. Ash v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...PER CURIAM. We affirm Appellant’s conviction without comment but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the judgment. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct the judgment to properly cite Appellant’s conviction under section 893.13(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2014). AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR. BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 2
Copy

Mitchell v. State, 776 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1212, 2001 WL 108749

violation of probation. He contends on appeal that section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997) is unconstitutionally
Copy

McGrill v. State, 82 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1780, 2012 WL 385647

...Curtis McGrill (McGrill) appeals a final order of the circuit court denying his motion for an alternative sentence and imposing a conviction and sentence. We reverse the order of the trial court, holding that a defendant whose criminal conduct is in •violation of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), is not barred from obtaining an alternative sentence under section 948.20(1), Florida Statutes (2009), if his Criminal Punishment Code score-sheet total sentence points exceed fifty-two. Factual Background McGrill was charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2008), and section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...r July 1, 2009, were required to score fifty-two points or fewer. The contested portion of the statute is as follows: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), or other nonviolent felony if such nonviolent felony is committed on or after July 1, 2009, and notwithstanding s....
...First, the comma after “July 1, 2009” may be a joining comma. If this is the case, then the language “notwithstanding s. 921.0024 the defendant’s Criminal Punishment Code score-sheet total sentence points are 52 points or fewer,” modifies (1) defendants whose criminal conduct violated either s. 893.13(2)(a) or 893.13(6)(a) and (2) nonviolent felons who committed a felony on or after July 1, 2009....
...State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1258-59 (Fla.2006) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Prior to its amendment in 2009, section 948.20 made no mention of a defendant’s criminal score sheet: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), the court may either adjudge the defendant guilty or stay and withhold the adjudication of guilt; and, in either case, it may stay and withhold the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on drug offender probation....
...v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (emphasis in original). The state’s interpretation of the statute would render a great deal of its language superfluous. A defendant whose criminal conduct solely violates section 893.13(6)(a) is a non-violent felon. There is no reason to set off offenders found to be in violation of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a) if they are subject to the same restrictions as all other nonviolent felony offenders. If the legislature had intended that all offenders seeking an alternative sentence have a CPC score-sheet totaling fifty-two points or fewer, then it would have excised any language regarding section 893.13 when it amended section 948.20....
...Hunter, 65 So.3d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Warner, J., concurring) (citing § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2008)). Section 948.20(1), when constructed in the light most favorable to the accused, does not require that a defendant *133 whose criminal conduct is in violation of section 893.13(6)(a) have a CPC scoresheet totaling fifty-two points or fewer. 1 Our opinion should not be interpreted as holding that all offenders who seek an alternative sentence under section 948.20(1), and whose criminal conduct is in violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), are entitled to one....
Copy

Moore v. State, 556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 689, 1990 WL 9289

unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), but specifically reserved the right
Copy

Paylan, M.D. v. Dep't of Health (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...The non-renewal came two years later, following Paylan’s application and an informal agency hearing. The department’s non-renewal order was rendered under section 456.0635, Florida Statutes, based on her controlled- substance conviction, a third-degree-felony violation of section 893.13(7)(a)9....
...e sentence and any subsequent period of probation for such conviction or plea ended: .... 2. For felonies of the third degree, more than 10 years before the date of application, except for felonies of the third degree under s. 893.13(6)(a). § 456.0635(3)(a)2., Fla....
Copy

Harris v. State, 649 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 856, 1995 WL 44545

PER CURIAM. Eric Lee Harris (Appellant) was charged by information with the sale of a controlled substance (cocaine) within 200 feet of a public housing facility (Count I), in violation of section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes; and with possession of cocaine (Count II), in violation *924 of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes....
...He was adjudicated guilty as charged and received concurrent sentences of 5½ years for the two offenses. In accordance with the recent pronouncement in Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 , 842 n. 1 (Fla.1994), that the “public housing facility” provision in section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, we reverse the plea, conviction, and sentence as to Count I and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a conviction for the lesser-included offense of sale of cocaine....
Copy

Barrientos v. State, 2 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 789, 2009 WL 277448

...court case number 02-CF-014987 and remand for further proceedings. See Stevens v. State, 409 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla.1982); Humbert v. State, 933 So.2d 726, 727-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Reversed and remanded. KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 893.135(1)(b)(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). [2] See § 893.135(1)(b)(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002). [3] See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

State v. Adderly, 596 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 814, 1992 WL 16653

...Sua sponte we vacate our September 12, 1991 order that stayed this appeal and issue the following opinion: The state appeals the departure sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellant received a sentence of two and one-half years of probation instead of the mandatory three years in prison required by section 893.13(13)(l)(e), Florida Statute (1989)....
Copy

McCoy v. State, 482 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 369, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6258

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant, Dwight McCoy, was charged by information with possession and delivery of heroin in violation of section 893.-13(l)(b) and (l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1983) and with delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1983)....
Copy

United States v. Hartsfield, 160 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12936, 2016 WL 409629

2014)4 (brackets original): Burton argues that a § 893.13(a)(1) violation can never be a controlled substance
Copy

Williams v. State, 184 So. 3d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1409, 2016 WL 403202

...However, he appeals only from the possession conviction. 2 In a single information, Williams and Atkins were charged with trafficking in cocaine, a first-degree felony carrying a maximum sentence of thirty years in prison and a minimum mandatory sentence of three years. See §893.135(1)(b)1.a., Fla....
...4 One month after this trial, the Florida Supreme Court approved substantial amendments to standard criminal jury instructions 25.07 and 25.10. See In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2013-05, 153 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2014). 5 See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
...ins’ car was necessary for a conviction for simple possession, the court prepared its own response, focusing on the question of whether Williams knew of the illicit nature of the substance found. substance was lawfully obtained”); see also § 893.135(1)(b)1., Fla....
Copy

State v. Caminiti, 613 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1258, 1993 WL 20440

PER CURIAM. Richard Caminiti was arrested in a reverse sting operation and charged with purchase of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the information against the defendant. REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings. LETTS and POLEN, JJ„ and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, concur. . See section 893.13(5), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Gonzalez v. State, 84 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3252, 2012 WL 634206

...499.003(42), unless the possession of the drug has been obtained by a valid prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe the drug. The state argues that Gonzalez’s prescription wasn’t valid because she obtained it in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes (2009), also known as the “doctor shopping statute.” This court has rejected that argument in cases involving various manners of violating the doctor shopping statute....
Copy

Robest v. State, 778 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2146, 2001 WL 195037

...We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence on the charges of count I, possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell and count II, possession of cannabis under 20 grams, as charged in the Information. The judgment entered by the trial court reflects that appellant was convicted under sections 893.03 and 893.131, Florida Statutes. As appellant correctly contends, without reply by appellee, that the judgment must be corrected to state that appellant was convicted under section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes as to count I and section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes as to count II....
Copy

S.J.J. v. Gnat, 707 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1863, 1998 WL 81564

This is a second-degree felony pursuant to section 893.13(l)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1997). He was initially
Copy

Henderson v. State, 594 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1862, 1992 WL 36273

...The issue is whether fundamental error occurred when the jury was instructed on an offense lesser in degree and penalty than the offense charged in the information. We find no reversible error, and affirm. Appellant was charged with the third-degree felony of sale or delivery of marijuana for consideration, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes....
...Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to a one-year term of incarceration. *337 Appellant contends that because delivery without consideration of less than twenty grams of marijuana is not a lesser included offense of the charged offense of sale of marijuana under section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, the jury instruction given in this case constituted fundamental error, requiring reversal of his conviction....
...r delivery of marijuana, defense counsel affirmatively agreed to the jury instruction on the lesser offense, and did not object to the instruction given. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, delivery of less than twenty grams of cannabis pursuant to section 893.13(l)(g), is a category 2 permissive lesser included offense of sale or delivery for consideration of cannabis, under section 893.13(l)(a), as charged in the information....
...evidenced by argument to the jury or other affirmative action. Failure to timely object precludes relief from such a conviction. In this case, appellant was charged by information with sale or delivery of cannabis for consideration, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, a third-degree felony....
Copy

Williams v. State, 464 So. 2d 624 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 551

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant, Johnnie Lee Williams, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance, a violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), and possession with intent to sell the same controlled substance, a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1981)....
Copy

Stinson v. State, 198 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2842, 2016 WL 746488

...Stinson lives within 1000 feet of an elementary school. The offense of delivering cocaine carries a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of three years if the transaction occurs within 1000 feet of a school between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight. See § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
Copy

Ewing v. State, 56 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 421

...Unfortunately, it turns out that he should have relied on his own better judgment instead of the standard jury instruction. The relevant standard jury instruction includes standard language to use with a wide range of drug offenses under subsections 893.13(l)(a) and (2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...that is fully subsumed within the elements of the crime of possession of the drug with intent to sell. See, e.g., Wilcox v. State, 675 So.2d 1043, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Patently, one cannot be convicted of possession with intent to sell under section 893.13(l)(a) if all the elements of possession are not met.”)....
...ommittee for its consideration. As it stands, we must send this opinion to the Committee and require the trial court to retry this count of the information. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur. . See §§ 893.13(l)(a)(l), ,03(2)(c)(4), Fla. Stat. (2008). . See §§ 893.13(l)(a)(l), .03(2)(c)(4). . See § 893.147(1). . See § 893.1351(2).
Copy

Howard v. State, 866 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2164, 2004 WL 360906

...tel room, negating defendant’s intent to sell elsewhere.” By making this point, Howard raises the argument that in order to prove possession with intent to sell an unauthorized controlled substance within 1,000 of a convenience store pursuant to section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2002), the State must prove that the defendant intended that the sale take place within that parameter....
...Accordingly, the conviction and sentence on review are affirmed. AFFIRMED. WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The second difficulty for Howard is that in Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), disagreed with on other grounds in Luis v. State, 851 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), a case involving section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), which prohibits possession of drugs with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school, this court rejected an argument identical to that advanced by Howard....
Copy

State v. McDaniel, 508 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 658, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018

...The state appeals a trial court order dismissing an information filed against the defendant, Tyrone E. McDaniel, on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse. The state filed a two count information charging the defendant with possession of cannabis with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1985) and with possession of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...The state contends, however, that the possession of cannabis with intent to sell charge does allege a felony. We agree. Since the trial court entered its order in this case, this court held in State v. McGee, 494 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), that it is a violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2 to possess with intent to sell any amount of cannabis and that such a violation is a third degree felony....
Copy

Schmitt v. State, 614 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2150, 1993 WL 46131

FARMER, Judge. Defendant was convicted of simple possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991)....
Copy

Troutman v. State, 668 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 1996 WL 75313

...ce: CAN ARMSTRONG BE APPLIED TO A CASE IN WHICH A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR? Sentences VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with Locke v. State, 656 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Pitts, 574 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1272, 1991 WL 18233

PER CURIAM. The state appeals the trial court’s order which dismissed a charge of purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard. The trial judge found section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statues to be unconstitutional....
Copy

State v. Ward, 574 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1314, 1991 WL 18257

...State, 412 So.2d 354 (Fla.1982) and Rule 3.170(g), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was necessary that the state consent to the plea to the lesser offense. REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings. HERSEY, C.J., LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur. . Section 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Perdue v. State, 78 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1372, 2012 WL 310878

...Winokur, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. WETHERELL, J. Robert Jason Perdue raises two issues in this direct appeal of his convictions and sentences: 1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress an audio recording made by a 911 dispatcher, and 2) that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional....
Copy

Walter Palmer v. State, 240 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...d the motion. 2 Respectively, grounds 1, 2A, and 2E of Palmer’s motion. 3 If a defendant is convicted of both introduction of contraband into a detention facility under section 951.22, Florida Statutes, and simple possession under section 893.13, Florida Statutes, for the same set of contraband and without distinguishing separate conduct to support each charge, double jeopardy may be violated....
Copy

W.J. v. State, 688 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1218

...verages in his possession. Therefore, the court was not obligated to orally pronounce that portion of the condition of probation. There is no blanket proscription on the possession of controlled substances in the juvenile community control statutes. Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), makes it unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice. To the extent that this condition bans the possession of a controlled substance obtained in compliance with section 893.13(6)(a), it is stricken....
Copy

Barnes v. State, 614 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2085, 1993 WL 39612

...Consistent with that determination, the trial court imposed sentence of time served in the 1989 case, and a ten-year period of probation in the 1990 case. *27 The record reflects that appellant’s 1990 conviction was for possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony. See § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Lovings, 1 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1240, 2009 WL 368586

PER CURIAM. The state appeals an order by which the trial court withheld adjudication upon three offenses for which the appellee pled guilty. One of the offenses (possession of MDMA) is a third degree felony as indicated in section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

F.J.R. v. State, 922 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1997

...or the defendant to return to his vehicle. Therefore, Deputy Williams was not justified in detaining the defendant and the defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Judgment and Sentence REVERSED. THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Daniels v. State, 650 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1566, 1995 WL 63079

...irements shall commence upon appointment of appellate counsel. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus GRANTED; Appeal No. 93-2724 REINSTATED. PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . § 810.02, Fla.Stat. . § 812.019, Fla.Stat. . § 812.014(2), Fla.Stat. . § 893.13, Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Swider, 654 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1280, 1995 WL 59339

offense governed by section 893.135. Although section 893.13(l)(e)(l), which was applicable to Scates, provided
Copy

Jackson v. State, 556 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 855, 1990 WL 11993

controlled substance § 893.13(1)(e), Fla.Stat. . Possession of a controlled substance § 893.13(1)(e), Fla.Stat
Copy

Dame v. State, 556 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 81, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 240, 1990 WL 13561

PER CURIAM. We have for review Dame v. State, 547 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to answer the following certified question: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? We have jurisdiction....
Copy

Lewis v. State, 556 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 81, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 263, 1990 WL 13540

PER CURIAM. We have for review Lewis v. State, 545 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court expressly declared valid section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Blankenship v. State, 556 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 257, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 237, 1990 WL 13557

PER CURIAM. We have for review Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), to answer the following certified question: *1109 DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? We have jurisdiction....
Copy

State v. Glover, 776 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1315, 2001 WL 120077

PER CURIAM. The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing Count I of the information charging Arthur Lee Glover with violation of § 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999) (prohibiting sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a physical place of worship)....
Copy

J.R. v. State, 273 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...In this case, the crimes are different, but the logic of Smith and McCloud is controlling. The defendant purchased one rock of cocaine and drove off with it in his car. When stopped later by the police, he was still in possession of the same rock. Section 893.13(2)(a)l and 893.13(6)(a) make possession of a controlled substance, and its purchase separate crimes. Those sections provide: Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to purchase, or possess with intent to purchase, a controlled substance.... § 893.13(2)(a). * * * * * * It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription. ... § 893.13(6)(a)....
...order, see Woodland v. Lindsey, 586 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), as we are certain the trial judge will competently carry out his judicial duties. AFFIRMED in part; REMAND for further proceedings. GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . § 893.13(2)(a), Fla....
Copy

J.R. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE and MILLER, JJ., and SUAREZ, Senior Judge. MILLER, J. Appellant, J.R., a juvenile, appeals from an order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing him on probation for possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2016)....
Copy

J.R. v. State, 273 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

for possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2016). Because the trial
Copy

Bradshaw v. State, 727 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, 1999 WL 77734

degree felony of sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). That statute
Copy

Filppula v. State, 106 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1541, 2013 WL 376064

...Kiefer Filppula entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following crimes: (1) possession of a prescription drug without a prescription in violation of section 499.03, Florida Statutes (2009); (2) possession of cannabis with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2009); (3) possession of alprazolam in violation of section 893.13; and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147....
Copy

Battle v. State, 573 So. 2d 448 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 686, 1991 WL 9387

...Appellant was found guilty of possession of cocaine and resisting an officer with violence. We affirm the judgments and sentences but remand solely for correction of the judgment, changing the designation of the possession conviction as a second-degree felony to a third-degree felony. See § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Atkinson v. State, 537 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 494, 1989 WL 6461

ZEHMER, Judge. Willie Atkinson appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Orr v. State, 206 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17997

...ides when a trial court may place a defendant on drug offender probation: If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), or other nonviolent felony if such nonviolent felony is committed on or after July 1, 2009, and notwithstanding s....
...felony" means a third[-]degree felony violation under chapter 810 or any other felony offense that is not a forcible felony as defined in s. 776.08. Thus, to qualify for drug offender probation, the defendant's offense must be a violation of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), a third-degree felony under chapter 810, or a felony that is not a forcible felony under section 776.08. Orr's offense is resisting an officer with violence which is prohibited by section 843.01, Florida Statutes (2014), and is therefore not a violation of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a) or chapter 810....
...See State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622, 623-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that trial court did not have 1 Orr was convicted after a jury trial. He was also convicted of possession of marijuana (twenty grams or less), § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...He was sentenced to time served on both of those misdemeanor charges. -2- discretion to sentence defendant to drug offender probation because applicable version of drug offender statute provided for such probation only for "violations of sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a)" and defendant was convicted of section 893.13(1)(a)(1)); cf. Sutton v....
Copy

Ortega v. State, 76 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19527, 2011 WL 6057897

...Before EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Ortega seeks review of the trial court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm. In 2004, Ortega was charged with, and pled guilty to, possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2004)....
...tion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, should he be able to do so within the pleading and time requirements of that rule. We express no view on the merits of any such motion. NOTES [1] In Shelton, a federal court held that "[b]ecause Section 893.13, Florida Statutes imposes harsh penalties, gravely besmirches an individual's reputation, and regulates and punishes otherwise innocuous conduct without proof of knowledge or other criminal intent, the Court finds it violates the due p...
...08. While lower court federal rulings may be persuasive, such rulings are not binding on this Court. State v. Dwyer, 332 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1976). Moreover, Shelton is contrary to a prior decision of this Court upholding the facial constitutionality of section 893.13 against the same due process challenge....
Copy

Jenkins v. State, 791 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15952, 2000 WL 1781417

...There was testimony at trial that the sale occurred within 158 feet, or less, of the Salem Haitian Lutheran Church, and that religious *1120 services are regularly conducted at the church. As in Jean v. State, 764 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), Appellant’s conduct fell within that proscribed by the plain meaning of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes; hence, he may not “successfully challenge the statute for vagueness nor complain of its vagueness as applied to the hypothetical conduct of others.” Id....
Copy

Coley v. State, 571 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9115, 1990 WL 191876

PER CURIAM. Appellant timely seeks review of his judgment of conviction for both purchase and possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school in violation of the “schoolyard” statute, section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

Jackson v. State, 570 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9081, 1990 WL 191873

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of a conviction for buying cocaine within 1000 feet of a school in contravention of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

Murphy v. State, 684 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12747, 1996 WL 697841

SHAHOOD, Judge. Appellant, Keith D. Murphy, was charged with and found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in violation of sections 893.03(2)(a)4 and 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994)....
...If it is intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, it is simple possession and exercising control. I’ll tell you about it again if you want me to. Okay. They don’t want me to. In the recent case of Wilcox v. State, 675 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court held that where a defendant is charged with violating section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), by possessing with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance, a lesser-included instruction on simple possession is required to be given if requested....
Copy

Crooms v. State, 182 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19512, 2015 WL 9491839

...Finding that Count IV charged Appellant with a nonexistent crime, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count IV, and affirm Appellant’s remaining issues without prejudice. The State charged Appellant with possession of a controlled substance,-Tramadol, citing section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2015). . Section 893.13(6)(a) provides: A person may not' be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained .except as otherwise authorized by this chapter....
...775.084. Section 893.03, Florida Statutes (2015), contains an exhaustive list of controlled substances, organized into one of five schedules. Tramadol is not listed as a controlled substance in section 893.03, and thus its possession does not violate section 893.13(6)(a)....
Copy

Donaldson v. State, 130 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20742, 2013 WL 6865422

PER CURIAM. Appellant, through counsel, has attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Florida’s drug statute; specifically, section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

Hale v. State, 864 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19800, 2003 WL 23094684

...This court affirmed his direct appeal without a written opinion. See Hale v. State, 798 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In his post-conviction motion, Hale raised four issues, two of which require reversal. In grounds one and two of his motion, concerning the conviction under section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), for delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school or child care facility, Hale alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to establish, as a defense to the charge, that a sign had not been posted identifying the facility as a child care facility. Section 893.13(l)(c) makes it unlawful for any person to deliver a controlled substance within 1000 feet of real property comprising a child care facility or elementary, middle, or secondary school between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. Section *1126 893.13(l)(c) also contains an exception that provides as follows: This paragraph does not apply to a child care facility unless the owner or operator of the facility posts a sign that is not less than 2 square feet in size with a word legend identify...
Copy

Thomas M. Palmer v. State of Florida, 180 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...jeopardy principles because they are based on the same act. We find that not to be the case. Palmer argues he’s being punished twice for the act of manufacturing methamphetamine. The manufacture of controlled substances is a felony under section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes. And the trafficking statute, section 893.135(1)(f)1., Florida Statutes, provides that a person who “knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of” 14 grams or more of amphetamine...
Copy

McDaniel v. State, 515 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1987).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 601, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2558, 1987 WL 21488

...This is a petition to review State v. McDaniel, 508 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which relied on State v. McGee, 494 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), in holding that possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis is a third-degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1985)....
Copy

State v. Bragg, 516 So. 2d 78 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2740, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11285, 1987 WL 2035

the time of the offense, could have violated section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides:
Copy

Washington v. State, 750 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17263, 1999 WL 1259004

...bout this court’s opinion and the individual judges of this court on that panel that he got the sentence wrong again. Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit a habitual offender sentence for a felony that is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995), relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance....
Copy

Bolling v. State, 664 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13477, 1995 WL 765283

...tance, a misdemeanor. 4 Accordingly, we correct the written orders of adjudication of guilt and order of probation to reflect the lesser crimes, and in all other respects, we affirm. AFFIRMED as corrected. PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1993). . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Smith v. State, 554 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7296, 1989 WL 154971

DAUKSCH, Judge. The judgment appealed is affirmed. We certify, as we did in Morrow v. State, 547 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? AFFIRMED....
Copy

Green v. State, 778 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1873080

...The Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine and sale or delivery of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. We affirm all issues and write only to address the Defendant's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). The Defendant was charged with violating section 893.13, which prohibits, in part, a person from selling or delivering a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. See § 893.13(1)(a) & (c), Fla....
...e Near a School as charged in the information. () Not Guilty As to Count II: (select only one) () Guilty of Possession of Cocaine as charged in the information. () Not Guilty The jury found the Defendant guilty as charged on both counts. Pursuant to section 893.13(1)(c)1, the trial court imposed the three year mandatory minimum sentence for selling a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. See § 893.13(1)(c)1, Fla.Stat....
...The Defendant focuses on State v. Estevez, 753 So.2d 1 (Fla.1999), a drug case that relied in part on the firearm cases. In Estevez, the information charged the defendant with trafficking in cocaine in excess of four hundred grams, in violation of section 893.135. See id. at 2. Section 893.135 also provided for different penalties depending upon the amount of cocaine trafficked; one of the provisions provided for a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years if the amount of cocaine involved exceeded four hundred grams....
...he proposition that a jury finding as to the presence of a firearm is not required where the evidence on that issue is not controverted at trial." Id. The Florida Supreme Court also relied upon drug cases that held that the alternative provisions of section 893.135, the provisions which provide for different penalties depending upon the amount of cocaine trafficked, "are lesser included offenses that must be submitted to the jury." Id. at 6. The supreme court reasoned that *328 because those provisions are essentially lesser included offenses, the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under section 893.135 is improper when a jury does not determine the specific quantity of cocaine involved....
...Under these unique circumstances, the record contains sufficient indication that the jury specifically found the Defendant sold cocaine within one thousand feet of a school. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum sentence under section 893.13(1)(c)1....
Copy

H.W. v. State, 777 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16844, 2000 WL 1873035

...As the State concedes, the trial court erred in committing H.W., a fifteen-year-old boy, to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indefinite period of time for a first-degree misdemeanor. Possession of marijuana is a first-degree misdemeanor, see § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

State v. Ratliff, 592 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12767, 1991 WL 275560

application of the sentencing provisions of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). At issue here
Copy

Capers v. State, 557 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7277, 1989 WL 155481

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by the defendant David Capers from a judgment of conviction and sentence for unlawful sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property, § 893.13(1)(e), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Woods v. State, 627 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12622, 1993 WL 535982

COBB, W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Copy

Koy v. State, 944 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3751300

...ttal was sufficient to preserve the issue for review. Turning to the merits of Koy's argument, we agree that the State's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for maintaining a structure for the use or sale of controlled substances under section 893.13(7)(a)(5), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...dwelling, building, . . . or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter. § 893.13(7)(a)(5), Fla....
...t the maintenance of the dwelling or other structure for the purpose of using, keeping, or selling controlled substances. Ashley v. State, 925 So.2d 1117, 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); cf. State v. De La Llana, 693 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding section 893.13(7)(a)(5) constitutional as applied to one who managed a bar where cocaine was openly used and sold)....
...Instead, there must be proof that the property was maintained for the illicit purposes identified in the statute and that the activity took place at the defendant's direction or with his consent. Ashley, 925 So.2d at 1120. We have found only two reported cases dealing with the application of section 893.13(7)(a)(5), neither of which addresses either the "purpose" element of the crime or the quantum of evidence needed to sustain a conviction....
...nce of drug use. Thus, even considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish that Koy maintained his residence for the purpose of using or selling controlled substances in violation of section 893.13(7)(a)(5)....
Copy

McBride v. State, 665 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 WL 755132

...This argument is not well-founded because, when the defendant was sentenced in December 1990, the habitual offender statute did not require that the underlying prior felony convictions be sequential. 8 State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d at 24. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . §§ 893.03(2)(a)4, 893.13(1)(a)1„ Fla.Stat. (1989). . §§ 782.04(1)(a)1, 777.04(1), 775.087, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 893.13(4)(b), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Boschen v. State, 647 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12452, 1994 WL 708207

COBB, Judge. For purposes of this appeal we review Counts 10 through 13 in regard to the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Count 10 charged armed trafficking in cannabis. § 893.135(l)(a), Fla.Stat....
...On October 6, 1992, the defendant and two others possessed in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis with the intent to distribute it. The defendant, it was further alleged, had in his possession a “firearm.” § 775.087(1), Fla. Stat. Count 11 charged the defendant individually with a violation of section 893.13(l)(a), possessing cannabis with intent to sell on October 6, 1992, while also in possession of a firearm; to wit, a machine gun....
Copy

United States v. Xavier Levar Smith (11th Cir. 2020).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Plea and Sentencing After the district court’s ruling, Smith pled guilty to Count 1 pursuant to a plea agreement. In a stipulated statement of facts, Smith agreed that he had three prior felony convictions for sale of cocaine, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1). Smith’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) noted that the statutory mandatory minimum term for his § 922(g)(1) firearm offense was 15 years under § 924(e)(1)....
...Smith agreed that a Florida sale of cocaine offense was a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Smith, however, contended that it did not qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA using the categorical approach, because Fla. Sta. § 893.13 contains no mens rea element....
...White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016). 18 USCA11 Case: 19-12686 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 19 of 20 This Court held in Smith that a prior conviction for sale of cocaine under Fla. Stat. § 893.13, the conviction at issue here, qualifies as a serious drug offense under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the ACCA....
...eneric- offense matching exercise.” Id. at 783-84 (quotation marks omitted). In so holding, the Shular Court affirmed this Court’s decision in petitioner Shular’s case, which relied on Smith, that a prior conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 qualifies as serious drug offense under the ACCA. ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 785-86. The Supreme Court further noted that the petitioner in Shular had “overstate[d] Florida’s disregard for mens rea,” because a defendant charged under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) who was “unaware of the substance’s illicit nature can raise that unawareness as an affirmative defense, in which case the standard jury instructions require a finding of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id....
...at 787. 19 USCA11 Case: 19-12686 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 20 of 20 Here, the district court did not err in determining that defendant Smith’s three prior sale of cocaine convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) were serious drug offenses within the meaning of the ACCA....
Copy

Allen v. State, 915 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20081, 2005 WL 3479838

...The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his postconviction motion attacking the legality of his sentence. The appellant claims his sentence is illegal because he was habitualized for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell, which is not authorized for violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1998), which relates to possession or purchase of a controlled substance....
Copy

McKinney v. State, 553 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7238, 1989 WL 153607

SHARP, Judge. McKinney appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), possession of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), and the sentence which was imposed on the possession count....
...Accordingly, McKinney’s conviction and sentence for the possession count is vacated and this cause is remanded for sentencing on the sale count. REVERSED in part; REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . Possession is a third degree felony; sale is a second degree felony. § 893.13(l)(f), (l)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Keegan v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 153611

...Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fleming Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant appeals his conviction for purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, and asserts that Chapter 87-243 which amended section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to among other things, create the crime of purchase of a controlled substance, is unconstitutional because its enactment violated the requirement of Article III, § 6, Florida Constitution, that every law have...
...action. Specifically, pursuant to, and under the authority of, the legislative direction in § 11.2421, Florida Statutes, the Joint Legislative Management Committee ( see § 11.147, Fla. Stat.) § 4, ch. 87-243, Laws of Florida, was incorporated as § 893.13(1)(a) in the compilation of the public statutes of a general and permanent nature entitled "Florida Statutes, 1987" which compilation was adopted and enacted at the general session of the 1989 legislature by s....
Copy

Smith v. State, 553 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7161, 1989 WL 153612

DAUKSCH, Judge. The judgment appealed is affirmed. We certify, as we did in Morrow v. State, 547 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? AFFIRMED....
Copy

Salerno v. State, 553 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7195, 1989 WL 153615

...URIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also Morrow v. State, 547 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (review pending Case #74,582). We certify the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Copy

Reinertsen v. State, 553 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7160, 1989 WL 153614

DAUKSCH, Judge. The judgment appealed is affirmed. We certify, as we did in Morrow v. State, 547 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), jurisdiction accepted, Case No. 74,582 (Fla. Aug. 22, 1989), the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL? AFFIRMED....
Copy

The State of Florida v. Daniel Arshadnia (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...f THC in the cereal bars. The chemist could not, however, offer an opinion as to the source of the THC. The State filed an amended information charging Arshadnia with: (1) trafficking between 25 and 2,000 pounds of cannabis, in violation of section 893.135(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2018); (2) possession of a place for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis, in violation of section 893.1351(1), Florida Statutes (2018); and (3) trafficking more than 1,000 grams of a synthetic cannabinoid, in violation of sections 893.135(1)(m)2.c....
...The Act establishes a framework to regulate certain controlled substances deemed to pose a risk of abuse or dependence. It lists each substance in one of five schedules and imposes penalties based upon a three-tiered classification system: (1) possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes; (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes; or (3) trafficking pursuant to section 893.135, Florida Statutes. In the first count of the amended information, the State charged Arshadnia with trafficking in cannabis....
...lt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.”1 § 893.02(3), Fla. Stat. (italics in original). In the third count, the State charged Arshadnia with trafficking in synthetic cannabinoids pursuant to sections 893.135(1)(m)2.c....
...If the quantity involved under subparagraph 1.: .... c. Is 1,000 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $200,000. § 893.135(1)(m), Fla....
...That is because courts should “presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992). Armed with these entrenched principles, we turn to the case at hand. Section 893.135(1)(m), Florida Statutes, proscribes possession of 280 grams or more of synethetic cannabinoids....
Copy

Cox v. State, 687 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13229, 1996 WL 729753

...orizes such fees. See Tibero v. State, 646 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Ch. 95-189, § 1, Laws of Fla. AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED for Correction of Probation Order. HARRIS and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 810.06, Fla. Stat. . § 893.03, Fla. Stat. . § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Johnson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9587, 1990 WL 208856

PER CURIAM. Appellant, charged in two cases with “unlawful sale or delivery of or unlawful possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance,” in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1987), complains that the trial court erred in refusing an instruction on simple possession. We agree that defendant was entitled to an instruction on simple possession as a lesser included offense. See Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.), Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses (§ 893.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat.); Essex v....
Copy

State of Florida v. Lucas Stevenson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

misdemeanor under section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). Section 893.13(6)(b) proscribes
Copy

Samples v. State, 516 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2771, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11316, 1987 WL 2112

have scored his prior federal conviction under section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1985) and the conspiracy
Copy

Wright v. State, 683 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13151, 1996 WL 724199

possession with intent to sell is a violation of section 893.13, which relates to the possession of a controlled
Copy

Rogers v. State, 685 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13071, 1996 WL 723390

with manufacture of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The jury found
Copy

Pedrero v. State, 499 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 120, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11105

...We find the trial court erred in sentencing appellant and, accordingly, remand for resentencing. A jury found appellant guilty of delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.-13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1983), and of possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes' (1983)....
Copy

Nicks v. State, 391 So. 2d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17898

SCHEB, Chief Judge. A jury found Kevin Eugene Nicks guilty of two counts of possession of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), and two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(a)l. The trial court sentenced Nicks to ten years on each count to run concurrently. Possession of cocaine is a third — degree felony under section 893.13(l)(e), the maximum prison sentence for which is five years under section 775.082(3)(d)....
...Consequently, the trial court erred in imposing ten-year sentences for the convictions of possession of cocaine. The court, however, legally sentenced Nicks to ten years on each of the convictions for selling cocaine because that offense is a second-degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)l and carries a maximum sentence of fifteen years under section 775.-082(3)(c)....
Copy

Matthew Friedson v. State, 207 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18446

...The detectives knocked on Appellant's door, hoping "he would hear vibrations of the door." When Appellant did not answer, the detectives moved off his front porch to the area directly in front of the window. The detectives then shined their flashlights through and banged on the window, at which 1 § 893.13(1)(a), Fla....
Copy

Monroe v. State, 76 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20070, 2011 WL 6258839

...facility. In his motion for postconviction relief, Monroe claimed that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to assert, as an affirmative defense, that there was no sign posted identifying Guardian Angels as a licensed child care facility. 2 Section 893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), makes it unlawful for any person to sell, or possess within intent to sell, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility....
Copy

Reinlein v. State, 75 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20020, 2011 WL 6265412

...NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . In light of our disposition of this case, we do not address an issue Reinlein raised in his supplemental brief regarding the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2009).
Copy

State v. M.L.R., 722 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15688

in possession of marijuana, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and was in possession
Copy

State v. MLR, 722 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 873066

...iving privileges be suspended for two years, pursuant to section 322.056, Florida Statutes (1997). The State filed a petition for delinquency against M.L.R. and alleged that on November 12, 1997, M.L.R. was in possession of marijuana, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and was in possession of drug paraphernalia, a violation of section 893.147, Florida Statutes (1997)....
Copy

State v. Nelson, 609 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12537, 1992 WL 373173

state appeals a trial court order declaring section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (applying a three
Copy

Tibbs v. State, 659 So. 2d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12199, 1994 WL 697959

...ic housing facility, and possession of cocaine. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Appellant first argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss certain charges. Appellant correctly notes that the supreme court found section 893.13(l)(i), Florida Statutes, which imposes enhanced penalties on those who sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, or possess controlled substances within 200 feet of a public housing facility, unconstitutionally vague because the phrase “public housing facility” does not give adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited. Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841 (Fla.1994). We therefore reverse the convictions based on violation of section 893.13(l)(i) and remand for proceedings consistent with Brown . It is also necessary to reverse the sentences imposed for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes....
Copy

United States v. Eugene Jackson (11th Cir. 2022).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...law crimes. Id. (quoting United States v. Braun, 801 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 2015)). III. Jackson contends that neither of his prior cocaine-related convictions under Florida Statute § 893.13 meets ACCA’s defini- tion of a “serious drug offense.” So we turn to that definition....
...e version of state law that the defendant was actually convicted of violating.” McNeill, 563 U.S. at 821. Here, Jackson’s two potential “serious drug offenses” include convictions for violating Florida Statute § 893.13 in 1998 and in 2004 with conduct involving cocaine. In 1998 and in 2004, when Jackson was convicted of his cocaine-re- lated offenses, Section 893.13(1) criminalized selling, manufactur- ing, delivering, or possessing with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, cocaine and cocaine-related substances, including a sub- stance called ioflupane (123I) (“ioflupane”)....
...Kushmaul, 984 F.3d 1359, 1364 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). As we explain in greater detail below, we assume without deciding that the standard categorical approach applies here. See infra note 9. 3 At the time of Jackson’s convictions, Section 893.13(1) prohibited selling, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, “a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) (1998); see also id. (2004)....
...21-13963 Opinion of the Court 7 The federal version of Schedule II also encompassed io- flupane in 1998 and 2004, when Jackson was convicted of his Sec- tion 893.13(1) offenses....
...eral conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) here, ioflupane was not a controlled substance “as defined . . . [under] the Controlled Sub- stances Act,” id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Based on this fact, Jackson argues that Section 893.13(1), which punished ioflupane-related conduct when Jackson was con- victed of his prior state drug offenses, is categorically broader than Fla....
...on, or the one in place at the time the defendant committed the present federal firearm offense. We divide our discussion into two parts. In Section A, we explain why the Supreme Court’s and our precedents on Section 893.13(1) do not answer the question we must address....
...We think not. USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 9 of 35 21-13963 Opinion of the Court 9 In two of the decisions the government identifies, we ad- dressed whether Section 893.13(1)’s lack of a mens rea element6 with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance renders the state statute overbroad in comparison to ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition. And in all three decisions, the Supreme Court and this Court held that Section 893.13(1), which lacks a mens rea element as to the illicit nature of the controlled substance, qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under ACCA. In United States v....
...Rather, that definition “require[s] only that the predicate offense ‘involv[es],’ . . . certain activities related to controlled substances.” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)). And because Sec- tion 893.13(1) involves those activities, we held that a violation of the statute qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under ACCA— despite the fact that the statute lacks a mens rea element with re- spect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance....
...fense match certain generic offenses.” Id. Although Shular explic- itly did not reach the mens rea issue we addressed in Travis Smith, see Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 787 n.3, the Court nevertheless affirmed our judgment that convictions under Section 893.13(1) do qualify as “serious drug offenses” under ACCA, id. at 784, 787; see also United States v. Shular, 736 F. App’x 876, 877 (11th Cir. 2018) (re- lying on Travis Smith to hold that Shular’s convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 qualify as serious drug offenses under ACCA), aff’d, 140 S....
...state offense involve the conduct specified in the [ACCA]’” and does not require a “‘generic-offense matching exercise.’” Id. at 1223 (alteration in original) (quoting Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 782–84). And we again rejected the argument that Section 893.13(1) cannot qualify as a “serious drug offense” under ACCA because it lacks a USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 11 of 35 21-13963 Opinion of the Court 11 mens rea element....
...preme Court’s precedent in Shular.”). The government insists that these three decisions, together with our prior-panel-precedent rule, require us to conclude that Jackson’s cocaine-related convictions under Section 893.13 are “se- rious drug offense[s]” because, in the government’s view, we have already declared that Section 893.13 is a “serious drug offense.” Un- der our prior-panel-precedent rule, “a prior panel’s holding is bind- ing on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or un- dermined to the point of abroga...
...ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition: first, whether the defini- tion requires that the state offense match certain generic offenses, see Travis Smith, 775 F.3d at 1267; Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 782; and second, whether Section 893.13(1) convictions cannot qualify as ACCA predicates because that statute lacks a mens rea element with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance, see Travis Smith, 775 F.3d at 1267–68; Xavier Smit...
...defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. [§] 802)).” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). At best, the Smith decisions and Shular assumed that this part of the “serious drug offense” definition and Section 893.13(1) encompass the same universe of substances....
...This step requires us to decide which version of the federal controlled-substances sched- ules that definition incorporates. Second, we turn to the “statutory definition of the state offense at issue.” Conage, 976 F.3d at 1250. Here, that definition resides at Florida Statute § 893.13(1), which describes the elements of Jackson’s prior cocaine-related offenses. Third, we compare the results of those steps to determine whether Section 893.13(1) is categorically broader—that is, whether it pun- ishes more conduct—than ACCA’s “serious drug offense” defini- tion. If Section 893.13(1) is not categorically broader than ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition, then Jackson’s prior cocaine-re- lated offenses qualify as “serious drug offense[s].” i. We break the first step into two parts....
...law and accompanying schedules in effect at the time of the prior federal drug conviction. That means that if Jackson had been convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act (rather than Florida Statute § 893.13(1)) for his cocaine-related activity in 1998 and 2004, his prior convictions would qualify as “serious drug offense[s]” under ACCA....
...definition. USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 30 of 35 30 Opinion of the Court 21-13963 Jackson argues that Florida Statute § 893.13(1), the statute he was convicted of violating in 1998 and 2004, is categorically overbroad because in 1998 and 2004, Section 893.13(1) encom- passed conduct involving ioflupane while the definition of “serious drug offense” did not....
...9 But as we have explained, the federal drug schedules included ioflupane in 1998 and 2004, when Jackson was convicted of his prior state drug offenses. And McNeill’s reasoning requires us to conclude that the 1998 and 2004 versions of the fed- eral drug schedules are what govern. So Section 893.13(1) did not reach more conduct with respect to cocaine than does ACCA’s “se- rious drug offense” definition as it relates to Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 prior state drug convictions. 9 Jackson asks us to find that ioflupane and cocaine are alternative means of satisfying the same element. In other words, he asks us to find that Section 893.13(1) is indivisible for each form of a given drug....
...of his prior state drug offenses, and because that version of the federal sched- ules listed ioflupane, it makes no difference whether Jackson’s convictions in- volved ioflupane or cocaine. We therefore assume without deciding that Sec- tion 893.13(1) is divisible for each form of a given drug, meaning we also as- sume that Jackson’s prior state drug convictions could have been for conduct involving ioflupane. USCA11 Case: 21-13963 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 31 of 35 21-13963 Opinion of the Court 31 Jackson has suggested no other reason why Section 893.13(1) might be categorically broader than ACCA’s definition for a “serious drug offense.” We therefore conclude that Jackson’s 1998 and 2004 Section 893.13(1) cocaine convictions qualify as “se- rious drug offense[s]” under 18 U.S.C....
Copy

Speights v. State, 554 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2849, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7056, 1989 WL 152143

PER CURIAM. This cause is before us from a judgment and sentence finding appellant guilty of the offense of sale or purchase of a controlled substance (crack cocaine) within a thousand feet of a school, in violation of Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes. Appellant contends, among other things, that Section 893.13(l)(e) is unconstitutional. We disagree and affirm. Several recent cases have addressed this issue and found the statute to be constitutional. State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (affirmed judgment and sentence based on Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and certified the question of constitutionality of the statute to the Supreme Court); Blankenship v....
...2d DCA 1989) (affirmed and certified question); Marlow v. State, 545 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Glenn, 545 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lewis v. State, 545 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), CONSTITUTIONAL? BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Copy

State v. Gordon, 920 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19544, 2005 WL 3357706

...e may not have known the individual was an undercover police officer in no way insulates him from the provisions of the theft statute. See § 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Furthermore, the transaction here was not unlawful because the provisions of section 893.13(l)-(8), Florida Statutes (2004), prohibiting the sale or purchase of a controlled substance, do not apply to “law enforcement officers for bona fide law enforcement purposes in the course of an active criminal investigation.” § 893.13(9)(h), Fla....
...893.03 and then sell to such person any other substance in lieu of such controlled substance.” See State v. Bussey, 463 So.2d 1141 (Fla.1985). Section 817.563 was not effective at the time Manucy was decided. Ch. 81-53, § 1, at 116, Laws of Fla. . While this section (formerly numbered 893.13(4)(b)5) and section 893.09(5) (immunizing officers enforcing Chapter 893 from prosecution for crimes defined in the chapter) were in effect at the time of Manucy , neither was addressed by the Manucy court.
Copy

Simms v. State, 702 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13939, 1997 WL 760597

PER CURIAM. We affirm the conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Bentley v. State, 555 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6992, 1989 WL 149620

PER CURIAM. The sole point on appeal asserts the unconstitutionality of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school property....
Copy

Parmley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12305, 1991 WL 262919

cocaine, a third-degree felony, in violation of section 893.-13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1987). In conclusion
Copy

State v. Bazil, 703 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13683, 1997 WL 756650

...We find that the issue has been properly preserved for review and that the trial court erred in not imposing the three-year minimum mandatory sentence in this ease. In Scates , the defendant purchased cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...Scates, 603 So.2d at 505 . This section pro *1152 vided that anyone convicted of selling, purchasing, manufacturing, or delivering a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school “shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” § 893.13(l)(e)l, Fla. Stat. (1989). The issue before the supreme court was whether a conviction under section 893.13(l)(e)l required the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence of three years, or whether section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989), enabled the trial court to place the defendant in a rehabilitation program in lieu of imprisonment....
...upreme court reasoned that he was the type of person contemplated by the rehabilitation alternative to incarceration as set forth in section 397.12. Id. at 506 . Thus, the supreme court held “that trial judges may refer a defendant convicted under section 893.13(l)(e)l to a drug abuse program pursuant to section 397.12 rather than impose a minimum three-year sentence.” Id....
...imum sentence required for the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. See Nordberg v. State, 603 So.2d 509 (Fla.1992). However, the statutes upon which the Scates and Nordberg decisions were based have undergone significant changes. In 1993, section 893.13(l)(e) was amended and renumbered, and section 397.12 was repealed with section 397.705 enacted in its place. See § 893.13(l)(e), Fla....
...Thus, this section also allows a trial court to impose a downward departure sentence and to require a defendant to receive substance abuse treatment. See Francois, 650 So.2d at 1131 . However, section 397.705 does not explicitly refer to chapter 893. The 1995 version of section 893.13(l)(c) states that it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. See § 893.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995)(emphasis added). Anyone convicted of selling, manufacturing, or delivering a controlled substance near a school “must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” See § 893.13(l)(c)l, Fla....
...Given the changes in this statute, we believe that if a defendant is found guilty of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, as Appellee here was, the trial court is required to sentence the defendant to a minimum of three years in prison. See § 893.13(l)(c)l; State v....
Copy

State v. Randall, 627 So. 2d 571 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12012, 1993 WL 496037

pled nolo contendere to several violations of section 893.13(l)(e)l., Florida Statutes (1991), and was sentenced
Copy

State v. McClellan, 765 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1088834

...t/Cross-Appellee. Thomas F. Nordlie, Esquire, of Charles Daniel Sikes, P.A., Starke, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. PER CURIAM. The State appeals the trial court's order dismissing Count I of the information charging Diane McClellan with violation of § 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997) (sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a physical place of worship) on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds....
Copy

Vickers v. State, 677 So. 2d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8221, 1996 WL 441695

...d sentences. We remand for correction of a score-sheet error and to strike a portion of a probation condition and certain costs imposed. In all other respects we affirm. The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine (count I), in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), driving while license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked (count II), in violation of section 322.34(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), alteration of license plates (count III), in violation of section 32...
Copy

Henry v. State, 492 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1727, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9182

...ting in the course of his professional practive or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony of the third degree. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Both statutes require possession of a controlled substance, and section 944.-47(l)(c) requires that the possession occur on the grounds of a state correctional facility. However, section 893.13(l)(e) contains no requirement other than mere possession....
...The offenses are therefore not separate and distinct and conviction of both violates Henry’s double jeopardy rights. Where conviction for two offenses violates double jeopardy principles, conviction of the less serious offense will be quashed. 6 We therefore quash the conviction under section 893.13(l)(e) and affirm the conviction under section 944.47(l)(c) since possession on the grounds of a state correctional institution is the more serious offense. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. UPCHURCH, C.J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion. . § 944.47(l)(c) & § 944.47(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985): Count I. . § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State of Florida v. Powell (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...The State later charged Powell by information with one count of possession of a controlled substance, a third-degree felony, under section 893.03, Florida Statutes; one count of bringing a controlled substance into the state, a third-degree felony, under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes; one count of bringing cannabis into the state, a third-degree felony, under section 3 893.13(5)(b); and one count of possession of cannabis, a first-degree misdemeanor, under section 893.13(6)(b). Before trial, Powell moved to suppress the items discovered in his car, as well as his statements, arguing the trooper had conducted an unlawful stop, detention, and search....
Copy

State v. Anthony C. Johnson, 196 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11821, 2016 WL 4150259

...because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by not utilizing a less severe alternative sanction than the exclusion of the witnesses. Respondent, Anthony Chris Johnson, was charged by information with violating section 893.13(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2014), by selling or delivering hydromorphone, a controlled substance, to a confidential informant....
Copy

Lillian Clover v. State, 199 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11818, 2016 WL 4150232

... and subsequently provided him with documentation that included the dates on which Mother had allegedly improperly acquired prescription drugs. However, Clover did not provide Mother’s actual medical records to Agent Hernandez. 1 § 893.13(7)(a)8., Fla....
Copy

State v. Williams, 603 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8415, 1992 WL 184007

PER CURIAM. The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order finding section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1991), unconstitutional on its face and as it applies to Yvonne Williams....
...In April 1991, the police arrested Williams, who suffers from substance abuse and dependency, for buying one rock of crack cocaine within one thousand feet of an elementary school at 11:15 p.m. The State charged her, in part, with a first degree felony under section 893.13(l)(e)l. Before her arrest, Williams had no prior felony convictions. Williams moved the trial court to declare section 893.13(l)(e)l unconstitutional....
...trial court from referring a defendant to a drug treatment program instead of, or in addition to, a prison term. In Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla.1992), the Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court “may refer a defendant convicted under section 893.13(l)(e)l to a drug abuse program pursuant to section 397.12 rather than impose a minimum three-year sentence.” Id. at 504 . Thus, the minimum three-year sentence of section 893.13(l)(e)l, which Florida courts had construed to be mandatory, is, in fact, not mandatory....
...The referral to the drug treatment program “may be in lieu of or in addition to final adjudication, imposition of any penalty or sentence, or any other similar action.” § 397.12, Fla.Stat. (1991). Consequently, in view of the supreme court’s ruling in Scates , we hold that section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1991), does not violate the cruel or unusual punishment provision of Article I, Section 17, of the Florida Constitution....
Copy

Nelson v. State, 820 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12258, 2001 WL 991584

...ot be a first degree felony but for the fact that the victim was a law enforcement officer^ Nevertheless, since consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were not imposed, we think there is no Jackson error. AFFIRMED. HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla....
Copy

State v. Harper, 792 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12243, 2001 WL 991524

...We note that the plea form inadvertently reflects a plea to the crime of possession with intent to sell marijuana. However, the information, the trial court’s oral pronouncement, and the written judgment and sentence all reflect that the crime charged was simple possession of marijuana in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). .Section 948.034(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides in pertinent part: On or after October 1, 1993, any person who violates s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a) may, in the discretion of the trial court, be required to successfully complete a term of probation in lieu of serving a term of imprisonment as required or authorized by s. 775.084, former s. 921.001, or s. 921.002, as follows: (a) If the person has not previously been convicted of violating s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may be withheld and the offender shall be placed on probation for not less than 12 months, as a condition of which the court may require the offender to comply with one or more of the following terms and conditions: (b) If the person has been previously convicted of one felony violation of s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 18 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 90 days.... (c) If the person has been previously convicted of two felony violations of s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 24 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 120 days.... (d) If the person has been previously convicted of three felony violations of s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 30 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 200 days.... (e) If the person has been previously convicted of four felony violations of s. 893.13(l)(a)2., (2)(a)2., (5)(b), or (6)(a), adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 36 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 360 days.......
Copy

Jones v. State, 551 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2027, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4883, 1989 WL 101055

...Appellant appeals two judgments and sentences which have been consolidated for this appeal. In each case below, from a single transaction, appellant was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to sell and sale of the same controlled substance, both in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes....
Copy

Robinson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12650, 2012 WL 3139589

PER CURIAM. The appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising two claims. In claim one she argues that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional, based upon Shelton v....
Copy

Inglis v. State, 547 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1839, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4368, 1989 WL 85719

...per. Therefore we reverse the order denying Inglis’ motion and remand with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence for the sale of cocaine. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. . Both offenses constitute a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l....
Copy

State v. Schultz, 120 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 4525439, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13671

GERBER, J. The state appeals from the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss six trafficking in oxycodone charges under section 893.135(l)(c)l.c., Florida Statutes (2009). The state argues the court erred in finding that the state was limited to charging the defendant, a medical doctor, with illicit conduct by a prescribing practitioner under section 893.13(8), Florida Statutes (2009)....
...In each of those six counts, the state alleged that the defendant knowingly sold or delivered to a person, “by means of prescription written in bad faith and not in the course of professional practice,” 28 grams or more of oxycodone, contrary to section 893.135(l)(c)l.c., Florida Statutes 1(2009). Section 893.135(l)(c)l.e., in perti-Inent part, provides: (1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13: [[Image here]] (c)l....
...ficking in illegal drugs” .... If the quantity involved: [[Image here]] c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000. § 893.135(l)(c)l.c., Fla....
...In each of those counts, the state alleged that the defendant willfully wrote “a prescription for a controlled schedule II substance for which there is no medical necessity or which was in excess of what was medically necessary to treat” certain patients, contrary to sections 893.13(8)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 893.13(8), in pertinent part, provides: (a) ......
...(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), if a prescribing practitioner has violated paragraph (a) and received $1,000 or more in payment for writing one or more prescriptions or, in the case of a prescription written for a controlled substance described in s. 893.135, has written one or more prescriptions for a quantity of a controlled substance which, individually or in the aggregate, meets the threshold for the offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under s. [893.135], the violation is reclassified as a felony of the second degree and ranked in level 4 of the Criminal Punishment Code. § 893.13(8), Fla. Stat. (2009). The defendant moved to dismiss the six counts alleging violations of section 893.135(l)(e)l.c. In the motion, the defendant primarily argued that because section 893.13(8) specifically addresses a prescribing practitioner’s alleged illicit conduct, the state could not charge him with the more general crime of drug trafficking under section 893.135. The state’s response to the motion to dismiss raised three primary arguments: (1) case law has held that physicians can be charged with trafficking of controlled substances; (2) section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase, that its provisions apply “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13,” clearly supports the state’s authority to charge physicians under section 893.135; and (3) section 893.13(8) does not eliminate the possibility of the state charging practitioners with trafficking, but rather provides the state with an alternative means to charge practitioners....
...nal statute, generally that statute which relates to the conduct in question with greater specificity is the one that should apply. Generally the statute with the lesser penalty should be favored. [[Image here]] The penalties for violating [section] 893.13(8) are less than for violating [section] 893.135[,] and [sections] 893.18(a)!, *225 2, 3[and] 4 clearly apply with great specificity to [the] conduct alleged here, (internal citations omitted)....
...State, 82 So.3d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (a circuit court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo). We conclude that the circuit court should have denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Our conclusion is based on three grounds. First, the plain language of section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase controls. Section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase provides that the statute applies “notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13.” Thus, the state may charge a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(1) notwithstanding the existence of section 893.13(8). Put another way, the existence of section 893.13(8) does not preclude the state from charging a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(1)(c)....
...State, 914 So.2d 942, 945 (Fla.2005) (“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning, we construe it accordingly, and need not resort to additional rules of construction.”). Second, even if the plain language of section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase did not control, the United States Supreme Court, our Florida Supreme Court, and this court all have held that when two statutes govern a defendant’s criminal conduct, a prosecutor has the discretion to decide whether and how to prosecute the defendant....
...State, 693 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[U]n-der Florida’s constitution, the state attorney has the discretion in deciding whether and how to prosecute a defendant.”) (citation omitted). Applied here, the state has the discretion to prosecute the defendant under section 893.135(l)(c) — in order to impose that statute’s penalties of a first-degree felony with mandatory minimum prison sentences and fines — in lieu of section 893.13(8)’s penalties of either a second- or third-degree felony. Third, denial of the motion to dismiss would be consistent with pre-section 893.13(8) precedent permitting the state to prosecute a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(l)’s predecessor statute, section 893.13(l)(a)....
...f [the doctor’s] right to issue prescriptions, does so in bad faith and thereby provides a user with the vehicle with which to obtain the drug [which the user] could not otherwise acquire.”). The defendant nevertheless argues we should hold that section 893.13(8) is controlling over section 893.135(l)(c)....
...overing the same and other subjects in general terms,” Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1959); (2) a certain sentence from diento which, according to the defendant, anticipates the possibility of a different decision after the enactment of section 893.13(8); and (3) the second district’s rejection of a state argument in O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), that section 893.135(l)’s introductory phrase negates the application of a different provision of section 893.13....
...) (citation omitted). We maintain that position. diento’s Reasoning diento’s reasoning ultimately refutes the defendant’s argument. In diento, the state charged a medical doctor with selling or delivering a controlled substance in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)’s predecessor, section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...lone.... ” Id. In a motion to transfer the case from circuit court to county court, the defendant contended that the information effectively charged no more than the misdemeanor crime of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance under then-section 893.13(2), now numbered as section 893.13(7)(a)l....
...The defendant later changed his plea to nolo contendere, but reserved his right to appeal the circuit court’s ruling. Id. On direct appeal to our supreme court, the supreme court affirmed. Id. at 666 . In reaching its decision, the supreme court stated: Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975), which defines “prohibited acts” under *227 the controlled substances law, does not explicitly cover the conduct of a medical doctor who issues a prescription for a controlled substance outside the course of his professional practice. Cilento, 377 So.2d at 665-66 . The defendant relies on the supreme court’s above-quoted statement for the argument that, after the legislature added subsection 898.13(8) to section 893.13 in 2002, the statute “could not be clearer in specifically defining a crime and its punishment for prescriptions when unlawfully provided by practitioners.” We disagree with this argument. While diento perhaps foreshadowed the legislature’s later creation of section 893.13(8), the coincidence of such a temporal relationship does not mean that the legislature intended to preclude the state from charging a prescribing practitioner under section 893.135(l)(c)....
...The fact that certain conduct might violate more than one criminal provision does not necessarily render it invalid. Fayerweather v. State, 332 So.2d 21 (Fla.1976). [The defendant], as a physician, is capable of violating either or both of the provisions, 898.13(1) and 893.13(2)....
...To apply dlento’s reasoning here, it is a function of the particular facts of this case, and the state’s discretion, see Fayerweather, 332 So.2d at 22 , whether the defendant’s conduct amounts to: • the first-degree felony of selling or delivering a controlled substance under section 893.135(l)(c), or • the second- or third-degree felony of illicit conduct by a prescribing practitioner under section 893.13(8), or • the misdemeanor of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance in violation of chapter 893 under section 893.13(7)(a)....
...Thus, the defendant’s status as a prescribing practitioner does not in some way immunize him from any of the charges. See id. O’Hara’s Reasoning O’Hara's reasoning also ultimately refutes the defendant’s argument. In O’Hara , the defendant (a layperson) was convicted of trafficking in hydroco-done under section 893.135(l)(c). 964 So.2d at 840 . He appealed the trial court’s denial of his requested jury instruction that it was not illegal to possess hydroco-done if it had been prescribed. Id. The defendant argued, in pertinent part, that the first part of section 893.135’s introductory phrase of “Except as authorized in *228 this chapter ... and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13” made available to him the prescription defense provided in section 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2004), which prohibits simple possession of a controlled substance. Id. at 840-41 (emphasis added). Section 893.13(6), in pertinent part, provides: It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription■ or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice .... § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). The state contended that the second part of section 893.135’s introductory phrase “Except as authorized in this chapter ... and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13” precluded any reliance on section 893.13(6)’s prescription defense in trafficking cases....
...ting to the same subject matter together in order to harmonize them and to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Whenever possible, we must give full force to all statutory provisions. Applying these principles here, it is obvious that sections 893.13 and 893.135 are part of a statutory scheme addressing the possession of controlled substances, with the latter statute imposing more severe penalties for possessing larger, “trafficking,” amounts of the drugs.... [[Image here]] [The legislative] history discloses that [section 893.135’s introductory phrase] was placed in the statute to address a narrow concern: that offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs might be prosecuted instead for simple possession under section 893.13, and thus they would be permitted to escape the more severe penalties mandated under the trafficking statute. Nothing in the enactment itself or in the history of the bills that resulted in the new law suggests that the Legislature intended or even contemplated the expansive reading advocated by the State, such that the exceptions or defenses in section 893.13 having nothing to do with penalties also would be excluded from the trafficking statute. Id. at 843-44 (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). The second district’s reasoning emphasized above favors the state here. Unlike O’Hara , this case has nothing to do with the exceptions or defenses in section 893.13, and has everything to do with the different penalties under sections 893.13(8) and 893.135(l)(c). Thus, just as our sister court concluded that section 893.135’s introductory phrase operates to prevent offenders who possessed trafficking amounts of certain drugs from being prosecuted for simple possession under section 893.13, we *229 conclude that section 893.135’s introductory phrase also operates to allow the state the discretion to prosecute prescribing practitioners under the second- or third-degree felony penalties of section 893.13(8) or the more severe penalties of a first-degree felony with mandatory minimum sentences and fines under section 893.135(l)(c)....
Copy

Courtney M. Moore v. the State of Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...nce of the convictions, their dates, the dates of release from prison, and the fact that appellant had not been pardoned or any convictions set aside”; “[a]n examination of the qualifying felonies showed that none were convictions pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes”; “[the] [a]ppellant did not object to any of the State’s evidence, did not introduce any contrary evidence, and made no argument against the application of the HFO enhancement”); see also Plott v....
Copy

Edwards v. State, 743 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11631, 1999 WL 650597

prior felony convictions, is not a violation of section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession
Copy

Montaque v. State, 699 So. 2d 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9695, 1997 WL 530568

of cannabis with intent to sell, contrary to section 893.13(l)(d)2, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial
Copy

Leaks v. State, 748 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815, 1998 WL 536984

...If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed. If a person does not have exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed. In Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736, 738, 743-44 (Fla.1996), the supreme court interprets section 893.13(6) as necessarily including a scienter requirement (i.e., the element of “guilty knowledge”)....
...Accordingly, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s erro^ did not affect the jury verdict in this particular case. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Cortez v. State, 766 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10927, 2000 WL 1205715

this case. Cortez was charged with violating section 893.13(7)(a)9, which makes it a crime to “acquire
Copy

State v. Stone, 792 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11886, 2001 WL 945955

...The State correctly argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it withheld adjudication and sentenced the Defendant to five years probation, knowing that one of the Defendant’s prior convictions was for selling cocaine. If a defendant has previously been convicted of one felony violation of section 893.13(l)(a)2., “adjudication may not be withheld and the offender may be placed on probation for not less than 18 months, as a condition of which the court shall require the offender to reside at a community residential drug punishment center for 90 days.” § 948.034(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). Our opinion in State v. Royal, 763 So.2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) is dispositive. In Royal , the defendant pled guilty to sale of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(a)l and possession of cocaine....
Copy

O'Neill v. State, 684 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1996).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 338, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1416, 1996 WL 473322

be punishable by imprisonment over one year. Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995),4 provides:
Copy

Henry v. State, 583 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8166, 1991 WL 159155

...es, jail time credit should have been applied to each sentence. We therefore *1121 reverse defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. Judgment AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN, C.J., and PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)1„ Fla.Stat....
Copy

Dame v. State, 547 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1963, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4751, 1989 WL 97701

ZEHMER, Judge. John Savary Dame was charged with and convicted of conspiracy to sell or deliver LSD in violation of sections 777.04(3) and 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and delivery of LSD to a person under the age of 18 years or hire of a person under the age of 18 years as an agent or employee in the sale or delivery of LSD in violation of section"893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The sole issue Dame raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges based on section 893.13 on the ground that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, the enacting legislation for section 893.13, violates the one-subject rule contained in Article III, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution. Both the second and fourth district courts have considered this question and have determined that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, did not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution and thus section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is constitutional....
...Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (4th DCA, 1989). We affirm the trial court’s denial of Dame’s motion to dismiss on the ground *1039 that the statute is constitutional, following Blankenship and Burch , and certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE • ONE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? AFFIRMED....
Copy

Mitchell v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111027, 2015 WL 5008654

...3) filed by Antwain D. Mitchell. The Government filed a response (Doc. 6) to the amended § 2255 motion in compliance with this Court’s instructions. Petitioner filed a reply to the response (Doc. 8). Petitioner asserts one claim for relief, his conviction under section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes is not a controlled substance offense or felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C....
...onstitution’s guarantee of due process.” 135 S.Ct. at 2563 . Petitioner’s sole claim is that his sentence is in contravention of Descamps because his prior conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes does not constitute a felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C....
...ith intent to sell or deliver under Florida law. (Criminal Case Doc. 90 at 14-15). None of these predicate offenses apply based on the residual clause. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir.2014) (holding that “[s]ection 893.13(1) of the Florida Statutes is ......
...§ 802 (44), and not the ACCA, controls enhancing a sentence under § 841.” Dimanche v. United States, No. 8:10-cv-1165-T-24TGW, 2010 WL, 2265652 , at *3-4 (M.D.Fla. June 4, 2010). A conviction for possession of cocaine .with intent to sell or deliver under section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes qualifies as a felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C....
Copy

Lockhart v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110248, 2015 WL 5008607

...12). 1 The Government filed an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 indicating its intent to seek an enhanced penalty. Id. at Doc. 32. The 21 U.S.C. § 851 information relied on Petitioner’s convictions for delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(A)(1), Florida Statutes and for purchase of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(2)(A)(1), Florida Statutes (Criminal Case Doc....
...U.S.S.G § 4B1.2(a)(1) and (b), See Gandy, 710 F.3d at 1237-38 (recognizing that agr gravated assault on a law enforcement offi-. cer- is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)); United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir.2014) (holding that “[sjection 893.13(1) of the Florida Statutes is ......
Copy

Plant v. State, 336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

first degree exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 775.082(4)(a)). Accordingly, we
Copy

Jackson v. State, 564 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5684, 1990 WL 108840

...The Florida Supreme Court has held that carrying a concealed firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon are separate offenses and may properly arise from a single act. See Skeens v. State, 556 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1990). Jackson also pled guilty to possession of cannabis in an amount less than 20 grams (section 893.13(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989)), a misdemeanor offense....
Copy

Allen v. State, 909 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12771, 2005 WL 1991753

...s experience, he probably had sufficient cause to suspect it contained contraband. See Dobson v. State, 737 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Burns, 698 So.2d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ„ concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). . § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
Copy

Silva v. State, 641 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8250, 1994 WL 444880

C.J., and COBB and THOMPSON,. JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Copy

Acton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8707, 1995 WL 490570

...Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to Acton’s right to raise this issue in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel motion, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, J„ and PADOVANO, P.J., Associate Judge, concur. . § 893.13(1X6, Fla.Stat....
Copy

Fonseca v. State, 114 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3535839, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13670

...convictions are barred by double jeopardy, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the conspiracy charge as there was no evidence of a conspiracy to manufacture a trafficking amount of amphetamine, and (3) section 893.13, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional based on Shelton v....
...State, 83 So.3d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We affirm Fonseca’s conspiracy conviction as it is founded on competent, substantial evidence. See State v. Odom, 56 So.3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Finally, we reject Fonseca’s challenge to the constitutionality of sections 893.13 and 893.101....
Copy

Wilson v. State, 547 So. 2d 353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1950, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4754, 1989 WL 97696

cocaine with intent to sell, each a violation of Section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant asserts
Copy

Hill v. State, 987 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 3539967

...Hill credit for all tolled time against her term of supervision after it dismissed an affidavit alleging that she had violated the terms and conditions of her community control, we reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2002, Ms. Hill pleaded nolo contendere to the charges of purchase of cocaine, section 893.13(2)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2001), a second-degree felony, and possession of cocaine, section 893.13(6)(a), a third-degree felony....
Copy

Phillips v. State, 961 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12709, 2007 WL 2317187

...A jury found Deaunte Phillips, also known as Deaunte Antwand Phillips, guilty of several felonies and two misdemeanors. On appeal, Mr. Phillips argues only that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2003)....
...He argued that the State had failed to make a prima facie case that he intended to sell the marijuana. Mr. Phillips conceded that the trial court should allow the jury to decide the question of his guilt or innocence on a related charge of possession of cannabis in excess of twenty grams, a violation of section 893.13(6)(a)....
...Phillips’ judgment and sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to sell. On remand, the trial court shall adjudge Mr. Phillips to be guilty of the necessarily lesser included offense of possession of not more than twenty grams of cannabis, section 893.13(6)(b), and sentence him for that offense....
Copy

Griffin v. State, 95 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3289219, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13406

PER CURIAM. The appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising what appears to be three claims. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief *419 on all of the claims, but note with particularity that the appellant has raised a claim that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional due to Shelton v....
...Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011). We deny this claim as well for the reasons set forth in Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). See State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 , 2012 WL 2849485 (Fla. July 12, 2012) (affirming the constitutionality of section 893.13)....
Copy

State v. Pajon, 374 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15739

...kes that JOSE ENRIQUE PAJON and RAUNEL RAMOS on the 25th day of October, 1978, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully and feloniously have in their actual or constructive possession a controlled substance, to-wit: COCAINE, in violation of Section 893.13 Florida Statutes, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.” Upon the defendant Pajon’s timely motion, the trial court dismissed the above count...
...The information in the instant case sufficiently meets these minimal requirements to withstand a motion to dismiss. It follows the language of the statute which *1072 the defendant is charged with violating and alleges all the essential elements of the subject crime. § 893.13(1)(e), Pla.Stat....
Copy

Febles v. State, 582 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7929, 1991 WL 154758

...GRANTED PER CURIAM. We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following: On February 22, 1990, Rolando Febles was convicted of trafficking in cocaine by possession of 400 grams or more of cocaine, § 893.135(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989), possession of cocaine, § 893.13, Fla.Stat....
Copy

Gibson v. State, 565 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6246, 1990 WL 115512

...For purposes of review by the supreme court, we certify the following question as being 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 IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 893.13(1)(A) AND THE CRIMES OCCURRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION 775.021, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP....
Copy

R.C.R., a Child v. State of Florida, 174 So. 3d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11969, 2015 WL 4747191

...2005)). Analysis The crime of possession of cocaine requires a showing that (1) the defendant possessed a substance, (2) that substance was cocaine, and (3) the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (referencing § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Liferson Brevil v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...and every conclusion favorable to the [State] that may be fairly and reasonably inferred from the evidence.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 29 So. 3d 361, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Brevil was charged with a violation of section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2018), which provides in pertinent part: (c) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person may not sell ....
...than 2 square feet in size with a word legend identifying the facility as a licensed child care facility and that is posted on the property of the child care facility in a conspicuous place where the sign is reasonably visible to the public. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...denotes a myriad of possible activities and services, and thus, such a reference . . . fails to specifically identify the structure as a licensed child care facility . . . .” Id. We agree with Judge Smith’s analysis in Williams. Applying strict construction, section 893.13(1)(c) requires that the sign contain language identifying the facility as a licensed child care facility. Here, that was nonexistent. Even accepting the Williams’ majority’s holding that section 893.13(1)(c) does not require “the sign to include specific ‘magic words[,]’” here the sign included no words which would “be sufficient to place a reasonable person on notice that the facility is a licensed child care facility.” Id....
...We disagree. First, we cannot hold that the trial court was required to consider evidence in a different case (the trial case) in determining whether the state could establish a prima facie case in the plea case. Second, even if we could so hold, section 893.13(1)(c)’s strict construction demonstrates that the presence of a sign identifying the preschool as a licensed child care facility is not an element of the offense. Rather, the absence of such a sign is an affirmative defense. This is clear because the sign requirements are not contained in section 893.13(1)(c)’s enacting clause but rather in a subsequent clause....
...sary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or a subsequent statute, that is [a] matter of defen[s]e . . . and is to be shown by the other party.” (quoting Baeumel v. State, 7 So. 371, 372 (Fla. 1890))). Section 893.13(1)(c)’s enacting clause merely prohibits the sale of specified drugs within 1,000 feet of a child care facility....
Copy

J.W. v. State, 879 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11746

...Two other conditions in the disposition order warrant correction. First, one of the probation conditions requires J.W. to refrain from using or possessing alcoholic beverages or controlled substances. This condition fails to provide an exception for other controlled substances obtained in compliance with section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2002)....
Copy

Arthur Bernard Sorey v. State of Florida, 252 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...We write to address the third issue in which Sorey alleges trial counsel was ineffective on the face of the record for failing to move for judgment of acquittal, where the State failed to prove the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of a church which regularly conducted religious services. Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that it is unlawful for any person to “sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, or within 1,0...
...evidence on a somewhat technical point, but he has not shown indisputable prejudice. Sorey faced charges of possessing drugs “within 1,000 feet of a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services.” See § 893.13(1)(e)2, Fla....
Copy

Swanson v. Scott, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (M.D. Fla. 2018).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida

...City of Atlanta, GA , 485 F.3d 1130 , 1137-38 (11th Cir. 2007) ; Crosby v. Monroe Cnty. , 394 F.3d 1328 , 1333 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Swanson was charged and tried for sale and possession of cocaine on November 13, 2008 in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 ; sale and possession of marijuana on December 3, 2008 in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 ; and trafficking of a controlled substance on December 5, 2008 in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.135 (1)(c)(1)....
Copy

L.G. v. State, 95 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3101327, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12360

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 , 2012 WL 2849485 (Fla.2012) (holding the statutory provisions of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011) “do not violate any requirement of due process” articulated by *398 the Florida Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court).
Copy

Fisher v. State, 698 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 1997 WL 428994

concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). . § 890-23, Fla. Stat. (1993). . § 893.13(l)(a)l„ Fla
Copy

Deltoro v. State, 546 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1813, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4294, 1989 WL 85278

...Pursuant to a consent search, police seized 138 grams of cocaine from a box in defendant’s car and a small bag containing a half gram of cocaine from her purse. The defendant was charged by information in count I with trafficking in cocaine by possessing over 28 grams but less than 200 *1170 grams of cocaine m violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1985) and in count II with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1985)....
Copy

Dunbar v. State, 842 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 2003 WL 1823515

...Dunbar argues that his sentence as a habitual felony offender is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 1 We affirm the decision of the trial court because Dunbar does not affirmatively allege that he received a minimum mandatory sentence under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2001), and was therefore affected by the amendments contained within chapter 99 188....
Copy

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2015-03, 191 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2016).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2016 WL 1375710

...orida, for Petitioner -4- 25.2 SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a), Fla....
...The substance was (specific substance alleged). Give if possession is charged. 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3), Fla....
...If you find that (defendant) is guilty of Delivery of Cannabis, you must then determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. Definitions. Give as applicable. Cannabis. §§§ 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...ou should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). -8- Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT— 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. Possession of 893.13(6) 25.7 a Controlled Substance, if Possession With Intent is charged Delivery of 20 893.13(3) 25.2 Grams or Less of Cannabis if Delivery of More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments If the State alleges the...
...an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-included offense of simple possession. See 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...§ 893.03(1)(c)46.–50., 114.–142., 151.–159, or 166.–16973., in an amount more than 3 grams, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b)., Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.3 SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY,OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF 10 GRAMS — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, purchase, or delivery 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 of controlled substance if and (2)(a) sale, purchase, or delivery is charged Possession of a controlled 893.13(6) 25.7 substance, if possession is charged Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged Comments There is no crime...
... This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.4 DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Delivery of a Controlled 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Substance Comments There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6), Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 15 - 25.5 BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...[her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. - 16 - Lesser Included Offenses BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE — 893.13(5) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....
...o. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.6 SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...t prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] a certain substance. Give as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...and 5 a.m. Real property comprising a public housing facility. § 421.03(12), Fla. Stat. The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute. Community Center. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS — 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Sale, Manufacture, or 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Delivery of a controlled substance, if Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery is charged Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is charged - 22 - Comments In 2014, the legislature passed l...
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2000 [765 So. 2d 692], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.7 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6), Fla....
...must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knew of the presence of a substance. 2. (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 3. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...–159, or 166–16973 Fla. Stat. 4. The [cannabis weighed more than 20 grams] [(insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166– 16973) weighed more than three grams]. § 893.13(6)(c), Fla. Stat. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...- 23 - 893.03(1)(b)] [mixture containing (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] weighed more than 10 grams. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. § § 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...her (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis or Possession of Less than 3 Grams of a Substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166–16973, if the felony level of these substances is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments Fla....
...defense. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.8 OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9., Fla....
...ated prescription defense. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...ructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.–3., Fla....
...and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.–2., Fla....
...2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM][OXYCODONE] [HYDROCODONE] [HYDROMORPHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED)] § 893.135(1)(c)1. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...[mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...ydromorphone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Specific Substance alleged), you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c)1.-2., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 44 - 25.11(a) TRAFFICKING IN HYDROCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)2. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The substance was [hydrocodone] [a mixture containing [hydrocodone]. 3. The [hydrocodone] [mixture containing hydrocodone] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydrocodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Hydrocodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 49 - 25.11(b) TRAFFICKING IN OXYCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)3. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...2. The substance was [oxycodone] [a mixture containing [oxycodone]. 3. The [oxycodone] [mixture containing oxycodone] weighed 7 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold oxycodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Oxycodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 54 - 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla....
...The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. 3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
... See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(d)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 59 - 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). - 63 - If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(e)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], and 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016. - 64 - 25.13(a) TRAFFICKING IN [AMPHETAMINE] [METHAMPHETAMINE] § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...f Amphetamine or Methamphetamine]]. 3. The [amphetamine] [methamphetamine] [a mixture containing (specified substance)] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methamphetamine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [Amphetamine] [Methamphetamine], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...- 69 - another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. 25.13(b) TRAFFICKING IN FLUNITRAZEPAM § 893.135(1)(g), Fla....
...The substance was [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam]. 3. The [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold flunitrazepam, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). - 73 - If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Flunitrazepam, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(g)1., Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 74 - 25.13(c) TRAFFICKING IN [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-BUTANEDIOL] § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...The substance was [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [or a mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]]. 3. The [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]] weighed 1 kilogram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla....
...actually sold GHB, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [GHB] [GBL] [1,4- Butanediol], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 78 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 79 - 25.13(d) TRAFFICKING IN PHENETHYLAMINES (INCLUDES MDMA) § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...mixture containing (specified substance(s))]. 3. The [(specified substance)] [analog, isomer, or mixture containing (specified substance(s))] weighed 10 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold MDMA, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phenethylamines, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 83 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016. - 84 - 25.13(e) TRAFFICKING IN LSD § 893.135(1)(l), Fla....
...to Florida] a certain substance. 2. The substance was [LSD] [a mixture containing LSD]. 3. The [LSD] [mixture containing LSD] weighed 1 gram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold LSD, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in LSD, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 88 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(l)1., Fla....
...- 109 - Lesser Included Offenses CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES — 951.22 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 Firearm Carrying a Concealed 790.01(1) 10.1...
... Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE] GROUNDS OF] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
... Lesser Included Offenses [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(a) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
Copy

Rosier v. State, 84 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1108410, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5182

...The defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. He raises four arguments: (1) the state failed to establish that he was either in actual or constructive possession of cocaine; (2) section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional on its face because it eliminates the scienter requirement in drug prosecutions; (3) his three-year sentence is unconstitutional because section 893.13 creates a strict liability crime with a maximum two-year sentence; and (4) the court imposed a $1500 public defender's fee without allowing him a meaningful hearing and without requiring any proof of the amount....
...sion of drugs where, among other things, the police found drugs in his bedroom and he stated that the bedroom's belongings were his); Maestas v. State, 76 So.3d 991, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("We hold that section 893.101 did not remove scienter from section 893.13 offenses and did not create an unconstitutional strict liability crime.")....
Copy

Rodriguez v. State, 84 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1108513, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5093

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); accord Little v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by [Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Dees v. State, 691 So. 2d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3154, 1997 WL 154772

...We have reviewed the record and agree with the Public Defender that no good faith argument can be made that error occurred in the trial court. We accordingly affirm Dees’ judgment and sentence. We note however a scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence in that the statutory citation is shown as section 893.13, Florida Statutes, when the correct citation is section 812.13....
Copy

D.R.C. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3362, 1996 WL 154216

...C. delinquent for possession of a controlled substance. We affirm the order of adjudication of resisting arrest without violence. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. GOSHORN, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only. . § 893.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

State v. Sanchez, 843 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6135, 2003 WL 1969277

PER CURIAM. The state appeals an order dismissing a trafficking in cannabis charge against the appellant. Sanchez was charged by information with trafficking in cannabis in violation of section 893.135(1), Fla. Stat. (2002), and possession of cannabis (more than 20 grams) in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), after police discovered 129 cannabis plants, weighing 75 pounds, inside of his personal residence. Defense counsel filed a sworn motion to dismiss the charge of trafficking in cannabis on the grounds that the number of cannabis plants found were less than the amount prescribed by section 893.135(l)(a)....
...Therefore, Sanchez’s charge of trafficking was properly justified by the 75 pounds of cannabis (both processed and unprocessed) found in his residence. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed with directions that the trafficking charge be reinstated. . Section 893.135(l)(a) provides: Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufacturers, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of in excess of 25 pounds of cannabis, or 300 or more cannabis pla...
Copy

Mary Jane Terry v. State of Florida, 267 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

..._____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Wesley R. Douglas, Judge. April 3, 2019 PER CURIAM. Mary Jane Terry was convicted of manufacturing cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
...could conclude that she was responsible for the “production, preparation, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance.” See § 893.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (defining “manufactured” for purposes of § 893.13)....
Copy

Curay Davis, Jr. v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

that the fine was a mandatory fine, relying on section 893.13(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes (2017). But the
Copy

White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6042, 2011 WL 1597679

...The trial court summarily denied her motion and this Court affirmed on appeal. See White v. State, 38 So.3d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). In the instant rule 3.800(a) motion, Ms. White first alleged that her HFO designation was illegal because her “prior convictions were for possession of cocaine, F.S. 893.13, which are not qualifying offenses for Habitual Offender Status under Florida Statutes 775.084.” The trial court denied this claim, holding that Ms....
Copy

Wardell v. State, 901 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6102, 2005 WL 991910

...The information against Wardell charged that he “did unlawfully and knowingly sell, manufacture, deliver, or bring into the State of Florida, or was in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone ... contrary to Florida Statute 893.135(l)(c)lc.” 2 He asked for a jury instruction on simple possession, 3 but the court refused, although it instructed the jury on the lesser amounts in section 893.135(l)(c)....
...In Wardell’s case, there was no controversy about the amount of drugs he possessed and that it was greater than four grams, but under Amado , the conviction must be reversed for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . § 893.135(1)(c)1.c, Fla. Stat. . Subsection 893.135 provides different penalties depending upon the amount of the drug involved: 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams; 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams; and 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms. .Section 893.13(6)(a) proscribes simple possession of a controlled substance unless it is obtained through a valid prescription.
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2016-09, 216 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2017).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...These amendments track 1. Technical changes to the amended jury instructions are not discussed. -3- recent statutory changes, by which the Legislature removed references to synthetic cannabis from section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2016)....
...-5- APPENDIX 25.2 SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a), Fla....
...a certain substance. 2. The substance was (specific substance alleged). 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemeanor. See § 893.13(3), Fla....
...Give if applicable. If you find that (defendant) is guilty of Delivery of Cannabis, you must then determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the cannabis weighed more than 20 grams. Definitions. Give as applicable. Cannabis. §§§ 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...ou should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). -9- Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT— 893.13(1)(a) and (2)(a) CATEGORY CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. ONE NO. Possession of 893.13(6) 25.7 a Controlled Substance, if Possession With Intent is charged Delivery of 20 893.13(3) 25.2 Grams or Less of Cannabis if Delivery of More than 20 Grams of Cannabis is charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 Comments If the State alleges the de...
...an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...§ 893.03(1)(c)46.–50., 114.–142., 151.–159, or 166.–173., in an amount more than 3 grams, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor necessary lesser-included offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.3 SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY,OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF 10 GRAMS — 893.13(1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Sale, purchase, or delivery 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 of controlled substance if and (2)(a) sale, purchase, or delivery is charged Possession of a controlled 893.13(6) 25.7 substance, if possession is charged Attempt, except when 777.04(1) 5.1 delivery is charged Comments There is no crim...
...2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. - 14 - 25.4 DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR § 893.13(4), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF A MINOR — 893.13(4) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. STAT. NO. Delivery of a Controlled 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Substance Comments There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6), Fla....
...Stat., includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.5 BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE § 893.13(5), Fla....
...knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. Lesser Included Offenses BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE — 893.13(5) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....
...2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.6 SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...tate must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] a certain substance. Give as applicable. § 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h), Fla....
...and 5 a.m. Real property comprising a public housing facility. § 421.03(12), Fla. Stat. The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute. Community Center. § 893.13(1)(c), Fla....
...d [him] [her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS — 893.13(1)(c)–(f) and (h) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Sale, Manufacture, or 893.13(1)(a) 25.2 Delivery of a controlled substance, if Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery is charged Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance, if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is charged Comments In Starting in 2014, the legislature passed laws pertaining to medical marijua...
...2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2000 [765 So. 2d 692], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. - 23 - 25.7 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE § 893.13(6), Fla....
...must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knew of the presence of a substance. 2. (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance. 3. The substance was (specific substance alleged). § 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...159, or 166–173 Fla. Stat. 4. The [cannabis weighed more than 20 grams] [(insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166– 173) weighed more than three grams]. § 893.13(6)(c), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c), Fla....
...ted in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] [mixture containing (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] weighed more than 10 grams. Definitions. Give if applicable. Cannabis. § § 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b), Fla....
...er (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of Less 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 than 20 Grams of Cannabis or Possession of Less than 3 Grams of a Substance listed in 893.03(1)(c)46–50, 114–142, 151–159, or 166–173, if the felony level of these substances cannabis is charged Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 POSSESSION OF MORE THAN TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LISTED IN 893.13(1)(a) OR (1)(b) — 893.13(6)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6)(a) 25.7 controlled substance (listed in 893.13(1)(a) or (1)(b)) Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 - 27 - Comments § 893.21, Fla....
...This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.8 OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a)9., Fla....
...cannabis-related prescription defense. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS § 893.135(1)(a), Fla....
...ain substance. 2. The substance was cannabis. 3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants]. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cannabis, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(a)1.–3., Fla....
...509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE § 893.135(1)(b), Fla....
...substance. 2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine]. 3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.–2., Fla....
...2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM] [HYDROMORPHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED)] § 893.135(1)(c)1. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The [morphine] [opium] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of - 40 - elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydromorphone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in (Specific Substance alleged), you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...2d 985], 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.11(a) TRAFFICKING IN HYDROCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)2. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
...The substance was [hydrocodone] [a mixture containing [hydrocodone]. 3. The [hydrocodone] [mixture containing hydrocodone] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold hydrocodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Hydrocodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.11(b) TRAFFICKING IN OXYCODONE § 893.135(1)(c)3. and § 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla....
... 2. The substance was [oxycodone] [a mixture containing [oxycodone]. 3. The [oxycodone] [mixture containing oxycodone] weighed 7 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold oxycodone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Oxycodone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE § 893.135(1)(d), Fla....
...The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencyclidine]. 3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(d)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE § 893.135(1)(e), Fla....
...The substance was [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone]. 3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more. - 60 - If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(e)1.a.–c., Fla....
...2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2013 [112 So. 3d 1211], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017. 25.13(a) TRAFFICKING IN [AMPHETAMINE] [METHAMPHETAMINE] § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...e of Amphetamine or Methamphetamine]]. 3. The [amphetamine] [methamphetamine] [a mixture containing (specified substance)] weighed 14 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold methamphetamine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [Amphetamine] [Methamphetamine], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(f), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(b) TRAFFICKING IN FLUNITRAZEPAM § 893.135(1)(g), Fla....
...The substance was [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam]. 3. The [flunitrazepam] [a mixture containing flunitrazepam] weighed 4 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold flunitrazepam, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Flunitrazepam, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(g)1., Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(c) TRAFFICKING IN [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-BUTANEDIOL] § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...The substance was [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [or a mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]]. 3. The [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol] [mixture containing [GHB] [GBL] [1,4-Butanediol]] weighed 1 kilogram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold GHB, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in [GHB] [GBL] [1,4- Butanediol], you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 79 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(h), (1)(i), and (1)(j), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(d) TRAFFICKING IN PHENETHYLAMINES (INCLUDES MDMA) § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...mixture containing (specified substance(s))]. 3. The [(specified substance)] [analog, isomer, or mixture containing (specified substance(s))] weighed 10 grams or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold MDMA, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phenethylamines, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: - 84 - Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(k), Fla....
...There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). This instruction was adopted in 2016 [191 So. 3d 291] and amended in 2017. 25.13(e) TRAFFICKING IN LSD § 893.135(1)(l), Fla....
...nto Florida] a certain substance. 2. The substance was [LSD] [a mixture containing LSD]. 3. The [LSD] [mixture containing LSD] weighed 1 gram or more. If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above....
...sell heroin but actually sold LSD, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given. 1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla....
...See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991). If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in LSD, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(1)(l)1., Fla....
...oven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lesser Included Offenses CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES — 951.22 CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13(6) 25.7 Controlled Substance if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 Firearm Carrying a Concealed 790.01(1) 10.1...
...Lesser Included Offenses POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE GROUNDS OF] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(c) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
...Lesser Included Offenses [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(1)(a) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a 893.13 25.7 Controlled Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged Possession of a 790.23 10.15 Firearm or a Concealed Weapon By...
Copy

Leonardi v. State, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 257, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 586, 1990 WL 55940

OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Leonardi v. State, 548 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), did not violate the single subject rule of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. In that case, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: 1 DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Id....
Copy

Bennett v. State, 559 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1990).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 257, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 585, 1990 WL 55942

question as being of great public interest: “Does section 893.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), violate the
Copy

State v. Hines, 692 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4321, 1997 WL 202581

...within the realm of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal. See State v. Polak, 598 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . § 784.07, Fla. Stat. (1993). . § 843.01, Fla. Stat. (1993). . § 893.13, Fla....
Copy

Robertson v. Hodges, 883 F. Supp. 668 (M.D. Fla. 1995).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5841, 1995 WL 254356

...The cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 3), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , filed May 18, 1994. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 11,1988, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) and possession of cannabis in violation of Section 893.13(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1987)....
Copy

McCain v. State, 84 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1398632, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6308

...The appellant in this case challenges his convictions for possession of pseu-doephedrine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance and for unlawful manufacturing of methamphetamine. The possession charge is a violation of section 893.149(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), and the manufacturing charge is a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2010)....
...The appellant asserts that under Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), both statutes are facially unconstitutional because they require felony punishments for strict liability offenses. We have previously rejected the argument that section 893.13 creates a strict liability crime....
Copy

Davis v. State, 635 So. 2d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3701, 1994 WL 141219

...However, the written judgment and sentences transpose the sentences, reflecting a sentence of five and a half years for possession of cocaine and a sentence of five years for sale of cocaine. This error results in a sentence for possession of cocaine which exceeds the statutory maximum for that third-degree felony. Section 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Fulmore v. State, 634 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3716, 1994 WL 140723

...State, 548 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1989); Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED; PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LIEN QUASHED and REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. HARRIS, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur. . § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Vessel Described as One 36 Foot Mirage, BHN CBD 36011M831 Displaying Florida Reg. Numbers FL5182 Em v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 487 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 946, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7446

...ount) stock of marijuana throughout the hull. Moreover, there is convincing evidence that the boat was used in a long distance smuggling operation from the Bahamas and, consequently, marijuana was transported into the waters of the State of Florida. Section 893.13(l)(d), Florida Statutes, states in part that: ‘It is unlawful for any person to bring into this state any controlled substance unless the possession of such controlled substance is authorized....’ Section 893.13(l)(d) makes it a felony of the third degree to bring into the state any amount of a controlled substance as listed per § 893.13(l)(d)(2) and § 893.-03(l)(c)....
Copy

Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5093, 1999 WL 228515

...Of the seven issues raised, we conclude that only one has merit. Salters was sentenced on count two, possession of cocaine, to a habitual felony offender sentence. Section 775.084(l)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1995), precludes habitual felony offender sentencing where the underlying felony is a violation of section 893.13, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance. Because possession of cocaine is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995), the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence resulted in an illegal sentence....
Copy

Mack v. State, 91 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1368185, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6164

...However, our affirmance is based on the fact that Mack is not entitled to relief because the Shelton decision and the Florida appellate cases cited by the postconviction court address a version of the statute that was inapplicable to Mack. Because Mack committed his offenses in May 2001, his charges are governed by section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2001)....
...ecame an affirmative defense. § 893.101(2). The Shelton decision, which describes the “express elimination of mens rea as an element of a drug offense” as “draconian and unreasonable,” 802 F.Supp.2d at 1295 , declared the amended version of section 893.13 (2002-2011) facially unconstitutional....
...stitutional, and Mack has stated no other basis for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mack’s rule 3.850 motion. Affirmed. LaROSE and BLACK, JJ., Concur. . This court rejected a constitutional challenge to the amendment of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2001), by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), in Burnette v....
Copy

State v. Paulk, 842 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4414, 2003 WL 1723470

RAMIREZ, J. The State of Florida appeals from a downward departure sentencing order. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand. Appellee Michael Paulk was charged with the sale of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2002)....
Copy

State v. Higdon, 814 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5101, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 872

...cannabis. We reverse because the trial court should have reduced the conviction to sale of cannabis instead of simple possession. The State charged Hidgon with sale or delivery of cannabis within 1000 feet of a convenience business, in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999)....
Copy

Bernard Davis v. State of Florida, 244 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...conspiracy to sell cocaine, MDMA, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Appellant agreed to plead no contest to a number of the counts, including count 26, for a negotiated maximum sentence of thirty years. Count 26 charged Appellant with sale or delivery of MDMA in violation of section 893.13(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes and was designated as a second-degree felony offense. Prior to the change of plea hearing, the State drafted a written plea agreement which Appellant referenced in his plea form....
...sale or delivery of MDMA and to resentence him on the remaining counts. The State concedes that count 26 was incorrectly classified as a second- degree felony, however it argues that Appellant is only entitled to resentencing on that count only. We agree with the State. Section 893.13 of the Florida Statutes provides that any person who sells or delivers a controlled substance named or described in section 893.03(1)(c) commits a felony of the third degree. § 893.13(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2014). MDMA is listed as a controlled substance under section 893.03(1)(c), thus making the simple sale or delivery of MDMA a third- degree felony. § 893.03(1)(c)165., Fla. Stat. (2014). Subsection 893.13(1)(c)2., however, provides that if a person sells or delivers a controlled substance listed under section 893.03(1)(c) within 1,000 feet of certain establishments, the person “commits a felony of the second degree.” § 893.13(1)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2014). In the present case, count 26 of the information alleged that Appellant “did knowingly sell or deliver a controlled substance, [MDMA], or any mixture thereof, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a).” It is clear, based on the subsection of the statute referenced, that the State was charging Appellant with simple third-degree felony sale or delivery of MDMA in count 26....
Copy

Piratova v. State, 87 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5941, 2012 WL 1314215

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v....
Copy

Gonzalez v. State, 87 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1370896, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5947

WELLS, Chief Judge. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “the uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Diaz v. State, 85 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5957, 2012 WL 1370899

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v....
...1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Copy

Ficichy v. State, 578 So. 2d 45 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 1051, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3578

...However, we certify the following question to the supreme court: DO FLORIDA'S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT? Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED. PETERSON, J., concurs. COWART, J., dissents with opinion. . § 893.13(3)(a)l Fla.Stat....
Copy

Lavoski Jackson v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...novo. Harris v. State, 289 So. 3d 962, 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Appellant was convicted of trafficking in phenethylamines by virtue of possessing between 10 and 200 grams of Dimethylpentylone, which the expert testified is a substituted cathinone. Section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes (2023), provides: (k)1....
...at 840. Thus, Erlinger held that the judicial inquiry is very limited. In imposing an HFO sentence, the findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of two or more felonies and that the current felony and at least one of the two prior felonies were not violations of section 893.13 related to the purchase or possession of controlled substances are the types of limited judicial findings allowed by Erlinger....
...The State introduced evidence of the convictions, their dates, the dates of release from prison, and the fact that appellant had not been pardoned or any convictions set aside. An examination of the qualifying felonies showed that none were convictions pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes....
Copy

J.E. v. State, 731 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4890, 1999 WL 218450

...n that criminal activity might be occurring in J.E.’s car. See Bowen v. State, 685 So.2d 942, 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). § 901.151(2), Fla. Stat.; State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 822 (Fla.1981). AFFIRMED. W. SHARP, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Grandison v. State, 691 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3909, 1997 WL 178906

...The *592 written judgment indicates that appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a second-degree felony in violation of section 893.18(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). However, appellant was convicted of simple possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony, in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
Copy

Tillman v. State, 577 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3621, 1991 WL 61782

...Earnest Tillman appeals a judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of sale of a substance in lieu of a controlled substance in violation of section 817.563, Florida Statutes (1987), possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), and sale of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)....
Copy

Howard v. State, 467 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 978, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13445

...There is no standard jury instruction on the subject crime contained in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases (1981 Edition). Accordingly, the court relied principally, and correctly so, upon the standard instructions appearing under “Drug Abuse — Possession, F.S. 893.13(l)(e)” found at page 225 of the above-referred instruction manual....
Copy

Corpstein v. State, 872 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5024, 2004 WL 784474

requiring a specific amount of cocaine under section 893.13(l)(a)(l), and therefore, the delivery of any
Copy

C.P. v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1030, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7783

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. C.P. was adjudicated delinquent based on separate findings of possessing, § 893.-13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985), and possessing with intent to sell, § 893.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat....
Copy

Cooper v. State, 653 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3700, 1995 WL 214613

and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Copy

Thompson v. State, 979 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5260, 2008 WL 974921

REMANDED. PALMER, C.J. and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2006) (prohibiting possession
Copy

Black v. State, 842 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4881, 2003 WL 1855127

...t *975 samples from each of the capsules in separate packages found on defendants to determine if total weight of randomly tested material contained enough heroin to violate trafficking statute). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. . § 893.13(1)(e) 1Fla. Stat. . § 893.13(1)(e)1., Fla....
Copy

Williams v. State, 558 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2364, 1990 WL 41530

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s conviction for sale, delivery or possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine rocks. § 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987). We reverse his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine rocks. § 893.13(l)(f) (1987)....
...State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989). 3 We remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING. GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. . The information erroneously cited section 893.13(l)(e)....
Copy

Foster v. State, 160 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5187, 2015 WL 1609912

...3 On appeal, the only issue is whether the trial court improperly imposed a habitual offender designation for Foster’s conviction of attempted purchase of marijuana over twenty grams while armed. Because section 775.084(l)(a)3., Florida Statutes, prohibits habitualization for violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance, the State properly concedes error....
...Although the appropriateness of pleading to a charge that had been dropped is debatable, this issue was not raised on appeal. . But for the habitual offender designation, ' this offense was a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in the Department of Corrections. See §§ 893.13(2)(a)2., 893.03(l)(c)7„ 775.087(l)(c), 777.04(4)(a), 775.082(3)(c), Fla....
Copy

Diaz v. Florida Dep't of Law Enf't, 164 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 WL 1609959

...PALMER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. . From the limited record provided to us, it appears Diaz successfully completed that probation. . It is undisputed that, under Florida law, Diaz’s possession of cocaine would have constituted a felony. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....
Copy

Styles v. State, 898 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4528, 2005 WL 735902

...A computer check on Styles revealed he was wanted on an active warrant. After he was arrested, one officer searched the bed and found the cocaine in a dinner plate. It was under the sheet that Styles had used to cover it up, as the police officers entered the bedroom. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ, concur. . § 893.13(6)(a), Fla....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.