James August v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008 JAMES AUGUST, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D07-4044 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 1, 2008. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alicia L. Latimore, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. COHEN, J. James August appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of cannabis with intent to sell and deliver, possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. August seeks reversal of his convictions based upon an alleged discovery violation at trial and dismissal of the conviction for possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis under double jeopardy principles. We affirm in part and reverse in part. August complains that the State failed to provide copies of prior judgments and sentences that were used on rebuttal to impeach his testimony at trial. The record reflects that the State advised the defense pre-trial that August had a prior criminal record and copies were available for inspection. The trial court's ruling that no discovery violation occurred is supported by the record and does not constitute error. As to August's second claim, the State properly concedes error. Convictions and sentences for both possession of cannabis with intent to sell and possession of cannabis over 20 grams arising out of a single possession violate double jeopardy. Crites v. State , 959 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Because August was convicted on count two, possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, the conviction and sentence on count three, possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, is reversed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. PLEUS and LAWSON, 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.