Court Opinion

ID: 9785677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:16:00.538974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:11.450131
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, Judge,
Concurs in Part/Dissents in Part.
¶ 1 I cannot disagree with most of the legal analysis in the majority opinion as it applies to the individual counts charged. Appellant and his co-defendant were clearly proven to be drug dealers. My problem with these kind of cases where the State is involved in "controlled buys" and the use of undercover agents is that there are no limits on the number and variety of counts that can be charged for what is essentially the same offense. Traditional double jeopardy and multiple punishment for the same offense legal analysis simply doesn't work in these cases where the State controls the number of offenses an offender may commit. These two co-defendants were big time drug dealers and were deserving of a lengthy sentence. I would therefore modify the sentences to run them all concurrent.