Appellant Lyle Joseph Parks contends that possession of cannabis1 under Section 893.13(l)(e),2 Florida Statutes (1981), is not a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver under Section 893.-13(l)(a)2.3 Thus, according to appellant, the trial court erred in convicting him of simple possession when he was charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver. We agree and reverse.
Appellant was arrested as a result of a “reverse sting” drug sale operation after he and a companion purchased thirty-eight pounds of marijuana from an undercover narcotics investigator. He was subsequently charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver.
During appellant’s ensuing jury trial, the state requested an instruction on simple possession as a “necessarily lesser included offense” of the crime charged. Defense counsel initially opposed this instruction on the basis that both crimes were equal penalty third degree felonies, and that possession thus was not a lesser offense than another crime carrying the same punishment. Counsel later capitulated to the state’s request, however, stating that he was unable to argue with the supreme court’s approved schedule of lesser included offenses, which listed possession as a category one lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver.4 The trial court gave the requested instruction, and the jury found appellant guilty of simple possession.5
On appeal, appellant directs this court’s attention to the supreme court’s decisions in State v. Carpenter, 417 So.2d 986 (Fla.1982), and Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981), which we find dispositive of the issues raised.
*792In Carpenter, the supreme court disagreed with the contention that an equal penalty offense could be a lesser included offense of the crime charged. The supreme court held that the lesser included offense exception to separate sentencing under section 775.021(4) was inapplicable where two crimes carry the same penalty “since one crime is not the lesser of the other.” 417 So.2d at 987. This statement, coupled with similar language in Ray, 'supports appellant’s assertion that a crime carrying a penalty of equal severity to that for the offense charged cannot be a lesser included offense of the original charge.
Under the present statutory scheme, possession of cannabis and possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver are both third degree felonies, carrying maximum sentences of five years imprisonment. In light of these coterminous penalties and the Carpenter and Ray decisions, we are compelled to conclude that possession of cannabis cannot be a lesser included offense of possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, notwithstanding the basic logic of such a correlation.6 Thus, like the supreme court in Ray, we reverse appellant’s conviction of a crime for which he was not charged which is not a lesser included offense of the charged offense.7
We need not address the sufficiency or possible waiver of defense counsel’s objection to the erroneous instruction at trial inasmuch as the limitations imposed upon the fundamental error doctrine in Ray are not present in the instant case. Furthermore, we need not address appellant’s entrapment argument.
Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with directions to discharge appellant.
OTT, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.