Case Name: Tommie V. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-05-07
Citations: 712 So. 2d 380
Docket Number: No. 90494
Parties: Tommie V. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 712
Pages: 380–383

Head Matter:
Tommie V. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 90494.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 7, 1998.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Susan D. Cline, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

Opinion:
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Johnson v. State, 689 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), based on conflict with Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), and Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Johnson.
On September 6, 1995, Deputy Moore stopped Tommie Johnson for speeding on Interstate 95. When Moore looked under the spare tire in Johnson's trunk, he found two plastic bags of cocaine, one weighing 69 grams, the other 41 grams. Based on this evidence, Johnson was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. He was convicted as charged and the district court affirmed.
Johnson contends that his dual convictions based on the same quantity of cocaine violate double jeopardy. We agree. After the district court rendered its decision in Johnson, we decided both Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), and Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997). We find these cases dispositive.
When conducting double jeopardy analysis under an "alternative conduct statute," such as the trafficking statute, the court must focus on the particular component of the statute that is in issue, as we explained in Gibbs:
[W]e recognize that an alternative conduct statute, such as the cocaine trafficking statute, requires an analysis that breaks the conduct elements into the specific alternative conduct which is in the other statute being compared. Tfie conduct element of the trafficking statute is not compared by considering the entire range of conduct including possession, sale, purchase, and delivery, but rather by comparing only trafficking possession with simple possession. This is a different situation from a case in which the defendant is charged with both trafficking sale and simple possession, because the sale element of the trafficking statute differs from the elements in the simple possession statute. Thus, if prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes, a conviction under more than one of the statutes is a violation of double jeopardy principles.
Gibbs, 698 So.2d at 1209-10.
In the present case, when we compare the possession component of the trafficking statute to the companion crime of possession with intent to sell, we find that while the latter offense contains a statutory element not found in the former, i.e., intent to sell, the reverse is not true. "Thus, the court exceeded its statutory authority by convicting and sentencing [the defendant] for both of these crimes, which arose out of, a single criminal episode." Paccione, 698 So.2d at 254.
We quash Johnson.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., recused.
. Section 893.135 prohibits the possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine and provides in relevant part:
Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine . but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine . commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine."
§ 893.135(1)(b)( 1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. Section 893.13 prohibits the possession of a controlled substance for specific purposes and provides in relevant part:
Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.
§ 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. In Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), we held that dual convictions for trafficking possession of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance violate double jeopardy when based on the same quantity of cocaine.
. In Paccione v. State, 698 So.2d 252 (Fla.1997), we held that dual convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and simple possession of marijuana violate double jeopardy when based on the same quantity of marijuana.
. Cf. Paccione, 698 So.2d at 254 ("While possession with the intent to sell contains an element that possession does not, the converse is not true. Simple possession contains no element not found in possession with the intent to sell."); see also Gibbs, 698 So.2d at 1209 ("We do not find that the quantity requirement of trafficking possession is a separate element which allows the dual prosecution of both trafficking possession and simple possession arising out of'the possession of the same cocaine.").