Tyler v. State, 107 So. 3d 547

Appellant James Tyler, III was convicted of sale of cocaine and marijuana and possession of the same substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010).
He challenged these four convictions on double jeopardy grounds and challenged the facial constitutionality of section 893.13.
The trial court’s decisions resulted in affirming all four convictions on appeal.
Florida Supreme Court decisions interpreting section 893.13, including Adkins, were invoked to address the facial challenge.
The court applied Blockburger analysis and Florida double jeopardy doctrine to examine whether separate offenses existed for sale and possession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy: sale and possession convictions	Tyler contends sale and possession violate double jeopardy.	State argues multiple offenses permitted where separate elements exist.	No double jeopardy violation; sale and simple possession are separate offenses.
Facial constitutionality of section 893.13	Tyler asserts the statute is facially unconstitutional.	State defends statutory structure; absence-of-knowledge defense is constitutional.	Facial challenge rejected; absence-of-knowledge defense constitutional.

State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012) (affirmative defense of lack of knowledge constitutional; facial challenge rejected)
Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (affirmative defense structure discussed; review denied)
Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997) (Blockburger framework for multiple offenses)
McCloud, 577 So.2d 939 (Fla.1991) (possession and sale as separate offenses when elements differ)
Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997) (possession with intent to sell vs simple possession analysis)
Johnson v. State, 712 So.2d 380 (Fla.1998) (trafficking possession component analyzed; focus on specific statutory element)
Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695 (Fla.2001) (double jeopardy analysis for separate statutory provisions)