Supreme Court of Florida, 1990

State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Florida · Decided May 17, 1990 · Barkett, Ehrlich, Grimes, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw
561 So. 2d 274; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 312; 1990 Fla. LEXIS 684; 1990 WL 68077 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

State v. Johnson

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We accepted for review Johnson v. State, 543 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), based on apparent conflict with Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987). Upon reviewing the briefs, we have determined that no conflict exists and that jurisdiction improvidently was granted. Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

overton, McDonald, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.

NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT.

Dissenting Opinion

SHAW, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent for the same reason I dissented in State v. Hatten, 560 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1990). The district court here held that convictions for sale and simple possession cannot be based on a single act. In my opinion, this conflicts with Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), in that sale and simple possession contain different statutory elements and address different evils.

EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.