Conage v. United States
Answering a question certified by the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court held that a completed 'purchase' under section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes, requires proof that the defendant both gave consideration for and obtained control of a trafficking quantity of drugs, with 'control' matching federal constructive-possession concepts. In reaching that result, the Court declared the long-cited Holly v. Auld 'plain and unambiguous language' maxim to be 'misleading and outdated,' holding that courts must exhaust all textual and structural clues and may use the traditional canons throughout the interpretive process rather than only after a threshold ambiguity finding.
Key facts
- Conage, a federal defendant, was convicted and sentenced under a federal statute that incorporated Florida's drug trafficking law (section 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.) as a sentencing enhancement.
- The trial court applied Florida's drug trafficking statute, and the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether a 'purchase' under that statute requires proof of both consideration and control of the drugs.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
Though it arises from a federal sentencing dispute, the opinion's central methodological holding is transferable to every civil case involving statutory construction: the Court has formally retired the Holly v. Auld… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.