Thus, we conclude that these two offenses are not separate offenses. See Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under section 893.13 are vacated.

Florida case law is well settled that possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis is a category four lesser included offense of introduction of the same cannabis into a county detention facility. Cooper v. State, 512 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Tessier v. State, 462 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Furthermore, both federal and state case law provide that prosecution and conviction of a lesser included offense bars a successive prosecution of the greater offense.

Wilcott pointed to two Second District Court of Appeal decisions that found possession of marijuana, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983), to be a lesser included offense of the simultaneous introduction or possession of the same marijuana into a county detention facility. See Tessier v. State, 462 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The district court rejected this argument, however, ruling that sections 893.13 and 944.47 described separate and distinct offenses.

Wilcott's position is that because the information charged introduction and possession in the alternative, and because the proof at trial revealed that he was found in possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis, he was entitled to a jury instruction on misdemeanor possession as a category two lesser included offense. To advance his position, Wilcott relies primarily on Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), holding that the inmate's possession of marijuana, for which he was convicted, was a category four (now category two) lesser included offense of his simultaneous introduction or possession of the same marijuana into the county detention facility, thereby barring prosecution for the latter crime on double jeopardy principles. See also Tessier v. State, 462 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (reaffirming the Dees holding).

944.47(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). We are aware of Dees v. State, 397 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) and London v. State, 347 So.2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Although helpful, neither case is actually on point. Further, we do not believe our decision is in conflict with either, as in both cases there was evidence that the contraband found on each defendant was discovered during a search of the particular defendant immediately upon his return to the facility from activities outside the institution.