Narrative Opinion Summary
Andrew J. Johnson, also known as A.J. Johnson, was convicted of delivering controlled substances and appealed the verdict. The jury erroneously found him guilty of both the principal charges of delivery and lesser included offenses of possession. The trial court, after polling the jurors, confirmed their intent was to convict Johnson solely on the delivery charges and disregarded the inconsistent verdict on possession. Johnson argued that because the jury found him guilty of possession, he should be sentenced on those counts instead of the delivery counts. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the relevant statute cited by Johnson did not apply to his case, as the crimes occurred after the effective date of the new criminal code, which was July 1, 1983. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, maintaining that Johnson's sentence was correctly imposed for the delivery of controlled substances without referencing the lesser offenses.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Statutory Changes to Criminal Offensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the statute cited by Johnson did not apply because the offenses occurred after the effective date of the new criminal code, and thus the sentence was correctly imposed under the current laws.
Reasoning: The court rejected this argument, explaining that the relevant statute cited by Johnson did not apply to his case, as the crimes occurred after the effective date of the new criminal code, which was July 1, 1983.
Inconsistent Verdicts in Criminal Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court disregarded the inconsistent verdict on possession after confirming the jury's intent to convict solely on the delivery charges.
Reasoning: The jury erroneously found him guilty of both the principal charges of delivery and lesser included offenses of possession. The trial court, after polling the jurors, confirmed their intent was to convict Johnson solely on the delivery charges and disregarded the inconsistent verdict on possession.
Sentencing Based on Principal Offensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the trial court's decision to sentence Johnson based on the delivery charges, ignoring the lesser possession offenses.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, maintaining that Johnson's sentence was correctly imposed for the delivery of controlled substances without referencing the lesser offenses.