- Court
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 4D2025-0875
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judge
- Lott, J.
- Disposition
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part
Background
Tonya Medders was convicted on multiple charges related to the possession, distribution, sale, and trafficking of opiates and opioids, including hydromorphone. She raised several issues on appeal, and the court summarily affirmed on most. However, the court found three separate double jeopardy violations arising between paired counts in the information.
Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed three convictions based on Blockburger test violations:
Counts I and II (August 17, 2022): Count I charged “knowingly sell, deliver, or possess with intent to sell” hydromorphone, while Count II charged “knowingly be in actual or constructive possession” of the same substance on the same date. The State conceded error. The court agreed that simple possession is subsumed by possession with intent to distribute — the former has no element the latter does not — citing Sims v. State, 793 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Counts III and IV (August 24, 2022): Count III charged “sell, deliver, or possess with intent to sell” while Count IV charged simple possession, both on the same date. The State argued that the jury was instructed only on “sale” for Count III, making the counts distinguishable. The court rejected this argument, holding that under Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018), the reviewing court must consider “only the charging document” — not the jury instructions — in determining whether charges are based on the same conduct. Because Count III as charged included possession with intent to sell, simple possession in Count IV had no additional element.
Counts V and VI (August 31, 2022): Both counts charged identical language — trafficking in illegal drugs under section 893.135(1)(c)1.c (28 grams or more of hydromorphone) — for the same date. The court found these counts were “not merely lesser-included of one another — they are the same charge, duplicated.”
Key Takeaways
- Simple possession is subsumed by possession with intent to sell under the Blockburger test; dual convictions violate double jeopardy.
- The Blockburger analysis is based solely on the charging document, not jury instructions or proof at trial, per Lee v. State.
- When a count charges “sell, deliver, or possess with intent to sell” in the disjunctive, the possession element makes it overlap with a simple possession count for double jeopardy purposes.
- Identically worded counts charging the same statutory offense on the same date are duplicative and cannot both stand.
Why It Matters
This decision provides a clear illustration of how Florida’s codified Blockburger test operates in drug cases with multiple overlapping charges. The most practically significant holding is the Counts III/IV analysis: prosecutors cannot avoid a double jeopardy violation by instructing the jury on only one theory of a disjunctively-charged count. The charging document controls. This has broad implications for drug prosecutions where informations routinely charge possession with intent to sell alongside simple possession, often as a litigation strategy to give juries a lesser option. The Counts V/VI holding — that identical counts charging the same crime on the same date are simply duplicative — while seemingly obvious, confirms a limit on the State’s ability to multiply charges based on the same conduct.