TRAVIS MONTEZ EDWARDS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
268 So. 3d 849
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Travis Edwards sold heroin to an undercover officer during a controlled buy; laboratory testing showed the heroin was mixed with fentanyl.
- Edwards was charged with two counts under § 893.13(1)(a)(1): one count for sale of heroin and one for sale of fentanyl.
- Edwards moved to dismiss one count on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- Edwards entered open nolo contendere pleas to both counts but preserved the double jeopardy issue for appeal because no express waiver appeared in the record.
- The core legal question was whether selling a mixture of two controlled substances constitutes one offense or separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes under Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate convictions for sale of two different controlled substances in a mixture violate double jeopardy | Edwards: a single act (selling a mixed sample) yields only one offense; allowing two convictions is double jeopardy. | State: legislature intended separate punishments for sale of each controlled substance named in § 893.13(1)(a)(1). | Held: No double jeopardy; each type of controlled substance is an allowable unit of prosecution under § 893.13(1)(a)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (general pleas do not waive obvious double jeopardy issues)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (different-elements test for separate offenses)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (unit-of-prosecution analysis)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981) (legislative intent controls permissible multiple punishments)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (legislature may authorize multiple punishments for same transaction)
- Bautista v. State, 863 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2003) (use of unit-of-prosecution to allow multiple convictions under single statute)
- McKnight v. State, 906 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (a/any linguistic test and unit-of-prosecution analysis)
- Grappin v. State, 450 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1984) (interpreting "a firearm" to permit separate prosecutions per item)