Court Opinion

ID: 9527473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:54.527157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:49.129373
License: Public Domain

SEPARATE OPINION CONCURRNG IN RESULT IN THE OPINION UPON REHEARING
I concur in Judge Sullivan's Opinion Upon Rehearing in so far as it reaffirms the reversal of Young's class D felony conviction of possession of cocaine on the ground Young simultaneously possessed the cocaine which formed the basis for that conviction and the cocaine which formed the basis for his class C felony conviction. Young's double jeopardy protection is breached by multiple convictions based upon the location Young had the cocaine which he simultaneously possessed, be it in part in his left trousers' pocket and in part in his right trousers' pocket, or in part in his right trousers' pocket and in part underneath the car seat on which he sat, or, as here, in part on his person and in part in a spray can in his car from which he was removed immediately following the vehicle's stop. The essence of the offense of possession is the possession. Thus, just as the simultaneous possession of a stolen watch and a stolen wallet constitutes but one offense of theft, so too, the possession of the cocaine on a particular occasion is but one offense; the effect of the accumulated quantity possessed is to aggravate the possession rather than to break it into multiple possessions.
I specifically disagree with Judge Sullivan's reference to the "same transaction" or "continuous occurrence" test.