Court Opinion

ID: 9717299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:01:14.809283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.388825
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I believe the majority *185is in error in stating that the facts necessary to convict for Dealing in Cocaine were exactly the same facts required to prove the Conspiracy to Deal in Cocaine.
In the unpublished opinion written by Chief Judge Ratliff in the Court of Appeals, he correctly states the record when he says:
“The information charging Derado with conspiracy describes the agreements to deliver cocaine and acts in furtherance thereof with greater detail and emphasis on the agreements than the information in which the dealing counts were delineated.” Record at 18-19 and 64-68.
He further correctly points out that the act of dealing in cocaine encompasses the actual performance of the acts specified in the statute and does not include proof of an agreement with another person to commit the forbidden acts. I believe the record in this case clearly discloses that the State proved the separate acts constituting a conspiracy to deal and also established the culmination of that conspiracy in the actual dealing.
I believe this case falls within the long line of cases cited by the majority opinion where it has repeatedly been stated- that conspiracy to commit any type of felony and the commission of that felony can be separately prosecuted and a conviction obtained for both.
I would deny transfer in this case.