Not Named, Not a Problem: Florida Court Upholds Drug Conviction for Substance Not Named in Law

June 6, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

A major Florida court has ruled that a drug not recognized by name in Florida’s law prohibiting possession of substitute cathinones (bath salts) is still illegal and subject to the same criminal penalties as other controlled substances recognized by name under the statute. This article will discuss the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Jackson v. State ruling, and what it means for drug laws in Florida.

Synthetic cathinones are lab-made stimulant drugs commonly referred to as bath salts, and are regulated as a Schedule I substance on the state and federal level. Florida law prohibits any individual in the state from possessing or selling synthetic (“substitute”) cathinones. These are considered a controlled substance, and if someone is found with synthetic cathinones, they could face significant time in prison and hefty fines.

Under Fla. Stat. Section 893.03, possession of synthetic cathinones is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine if the amount found is under 3 grams. If the amount found is at least 3 but under 10 grams, this is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

If someone is convicted of possessing above 10 grams of synthetic cathinones, this is considered a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Mandatory minimum sentences for this include:

• A minimum of 3 years in state prison for possessing between 10 and 199 grams
• A minimum of 7 years in state prison for possessing 200 to 399 grams
• A minimum of 15 years in state prison for possessing 400 grams or more

In Jackson v. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal heard the case of appellant Lavoski Jackson – who was charged with possession or sale of substitute cathinones under Fla. Stat. Section 893.03 (Florida’s Controlled Substances Act). Specifically, Jackson was charged with possession or sale of dimethylpentylone – which is not named as a synthetic cathinone in the statute.

The State nevertheless successfully prosecuted and convicted Jackson. On appeal, Jackson argued that because dimethylpentylone is not recognized in Florida’s law regulating possession, sale, manufacture and distribution of synthetic cathinones, his conviction should be reversed. Jackson asserted that the State had not presented a prima facie case that dimethylpentylone is a controlled substance under Florida law.

But the Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed. The court examined the text of Fla. Stat. Section 893.03 and noted that the statutory list of regulated synthetic cathinones was prefaced by the phrase “including, but not limited to.” The court held that due to the presence of this phrase, dimethylpentylone did not have to be explicitly mentioned in the statute in order to qualify as a synthetic cathinone.

The Jackson court observed that a qualified expert had testified at Jackson’s trial to the fact that dimethylpentylone met the chemical description of synthetic cathinones under the statute. This was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the substance in Jackson’s possession was illegal and subject to Fla. Stat. Section 893.03.

Jackson also raised a claim that his due process rights were violated by his conviction under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions. Because the statute did not give notice that dimethylpentylone was regulated as a synthetic cathinone, Jackson asserted that his conviction could not stand on due process grounds. 

But the court similarly rejected this claim, stating the statute did not claim to name every synthetic cathinone (as it used the language of “including, but not limited to”). It also held that the law was not unconstitutionally vague because it failed to list every conceivable synthetic cathinone that could be possessed, manufactured, distributed, or sold.

In sum, the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Jackson v. State decision provides a broad interpretation of state drug laws. Even when the controlled substance alleged to have been illegally possessed is not named in the statute, Jackson holds that expert testimony can serve as a basis for classifying that alleged substance into a category prohibited by Florida law.

This case raises broader questions about the language of Florida’s drug laws. Just how much can the language “included, but not limited to” encompass before these laws face more challenges on the grounds of vagueness, similar to Jackson’s? Whether other District Courts of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue remains to be seen.

If someone is arrested and charged in a case involving an alleged drug offense, it is vital to seek out aggressive and experienced legal counsel as soon as possible. The attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across Florida who have been charged with marijuana-related crimes.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share