Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
ANDREW CHUMNEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Date: 03-16-2021
Case Number: 19-2603
Judge: Edward C. LaRose
Court: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Linsey SimsBohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General,
Tampa
Defendant's Attorney:
Free National Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Lakeland, FL - Criminal defense attorney represented Andrew Chumney with a appealing his judgment and sentences entered following the jury's guilty verdicts on a variety of drug-related offenses.
Andrew Chumney appeals his judgment and sentences entered following
the jury's guilty verdicts on a variety of drug-related offenses. We have jurisdiction. Fla.
R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); 9.140(b)(1)(D), (F). The parties agree that because Mr.
Chumney's convictions for possession of cannabis over twenty grams (count two) and
possession of cannabis with intent to sell (count three) encompass the same quantum
of marijuana, they violate double jeopardy. See Rodriguez v. State, 958 So. 2d 469, - 2 -
469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("Antonio Rodriguez asserts that a violation of his constitutional
guarantees against double jeopardy occurred when he was convicted of and sentenced
for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of the same quantum of
marijuana. We agree." (footnote omitted)); Sims v. State, 793 So. 2d 1153, 1153 (Fla.
4th DCA 2011) ("We reverse the final judgment adjudicating Sims guilty of both
possession with intent to sell/deliver cannabis and possession of more than twenty
grams of cannabis, as such amounted to double jeopardy."); Thompson v. State, 979
So. 2d 356, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ("Thompson is . . . correct in his assertion that
convictions for both possession of cannabis in excess of twenty grams and possession
of cannabis with intent to sell violate the proscriptions against double jeopardy when, as
in the instant case, they are related to the same cannabis." (citations omitted)); Crites v.
State, 959 So. 2d 1265, 1266-67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that convictions for
possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of more than
twenty grams of cannabis arising out of a single incident of possession violated double
jeopardy); see also Keene v. State, 600 So. 2d 513, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
("Possession is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell the same
quantum of contraband." (citing Albury v. State, 585 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991))).
We, too, agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to
vacate Mr. Chumney's judgment and sentence for possession of cannabis over twenty
grams. See Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d at 470-71 ("Accordingly, we reverse the conviction
for possession of marijuana and vacate the sentence for it."); Thompson, 979 So. 2d at
358 ("Accordingly, the conviction for possession of cannabis over twenty grams is
reversed and the sentence imposed for that offense is vacated."). In all other respects,
we affirm Mr. Chumney's judgment and sentences.
vacate the judgment and sentence for possession of cannabis over twenty grams.
About This Case
What was the outcome of ANDREW CHUMNEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
The outcome was: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence for possession of cannabis over twenty grams.
Which court heard ANDREW CHUMNEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
This case was heard in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT, FL. The presiding judge was Edward C. LaRose.
Who were the attorneys in ANDREW CHUMNEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
Plaintiff's attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey SimsBohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa. Defendant's attorney: Free National Lawyer Directory OR Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You..
When was ANDREW CHUMNEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA decided?
This case was decided on March 16, 2021.