Carlson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM 2002
JOSEPH CARLSON,
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 5D01-3089
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_________________________________/
Opinion filed July 26, 2002
Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Volusia County,
R. Michael Hutcheson, Judge.
C. Michael Barnette, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and
Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General,
Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
HARRIS, J.
Carlson pled nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the court's refusal to dismiss
the trafficking in cannabis charge based on possession of more than 25 pounds of cannabis
because the cannabis in his possession consisted of both processed and growing plants.
Since neither the growing plants nor the processed cannabis separately weighed the requisite
25 pounds, and since he contends a proper construction of the statute prohibits weighing them
together, Carlson contends a trafficking charge cannot be made. Without ruling on this issue,
we reverse for another reason.
Even adding the processed cannabis and the growing plants together the weight does
not exceed the 50 pounds required before the enactment of chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida,
the Three Strikes Violent Felony Offender Act, amended section 893.135, Florida Statutes,
by reducing the amount to 25 pounds for trafficking. We agree with the logic of Taylor v.
State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), that chapter 99-188 is unconstitutional
because it violates the single subject rule.
Therefore, we agree the court erred, although it was unaware of Taylor at the time of
its ruling, in not dismissing the trafficking charge. We remand to the court for further action
consistent with this opinion.
As did the court in Taylor, we certify the issue of the constitutionality of the amendment
to the supreme court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
