STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR LEWIS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of theft charges against Victor Lewis, rejecting his constitutional challenges to Florida's omnibus theft statute (Section 812.014). The court held that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, or subject to selective prosecution, and does not impermissibly infringe on property or contract rights.
Section 812.014 is constitutional. The statute requires proof of specific criminal intent, is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, does not improperly delegate discretion to law enforcement, and does not infringe upon the constitutional rights to acquire, possess, and protect property or the right to contract.
[1] A statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad if a conviction under it requires proof of specific criminal intent.
[2] The omnibus theft statute, Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, requires proof of specific criminal intent for a conviction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a conviction under the statute requires proof of specific criminal intent”
Establishes that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad because it requires proof of specific intent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVictor Lewis was charged under Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1977). The trial court dismissed the information against him, ruling the statute unc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Constitution Article I, Section 2 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this cause the state appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing the information against appellee on the ground that Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1977), is unconstitutional. The trial judge ruled the statute invalid on the grounds that subsections (l)(b) and (2)(b) are “so indefinite and overbroad that inherently innocent conduct is prohibited, in violation of due process of law,” and that they violate the right to acquire, possess, and protect property, and the right to contract. An additional ground raised by appellee in his motion to dismiss but never expressly ruled upon by the trial judge is that Section 812.014 permits selective prosecution.
We have recently disposed of the contention that Section 812.014 is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad by holding that a conviction under the statute requires proof of specific criminal intent. State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978). While that case involved a charge of larceny, the reasoning there employed is equally applicable to the offense of receiving stolen property, as now encompassed by the omnibus theft statute. We have similarly rejected the suggestion that Section 812.014 improperly delegates excessive discretion to law enforcement officials, thereby allowing selective prosecution. Dunnigan v. State, 364 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978).
The only points raised by appellee in defense of the trial court’s ruling that have not previously been addressed by this Court are that Section 812.014 infringes upon the right to acquire, possess, and protect property guaranteed by Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, and that it impairs the right to contract as guaranteed by the Florida and United States Constitutions. Inasmuch as these related attacks are grounded on the premise that the theft statute penalizes innocent conduct — a construction negated by our ruling in Allen, supra — they are without merit.
The order entered below, dismissing the information against the appellee on the ground that Section 812.014 is unconstitutional, is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Woulard v. State, 365 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1978)…PER CURIAM. The order of the trial judge, denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds that Section 812.014 is unconstitutional, is affirmed. See State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978); State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223, (Fla. 1978); State v. Belgrave, 364 So. 2d 1225, No. (Fla. 1978); Dunnigan v. State, 364 So. 2d 1217, (Fla. 1978). This case is transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, for consideration of the remaining issues raised by appell…
-
State v. Dickinson, 370 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1979)…fail to provide adequate notice of the conduct prohibited. We have jurisdiction to review this direct appeal under Article V, Section 3(bXl), Florida Constitution. We extend our reasoning in State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978); State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla., 1978); and State v. Belgrave, 364 So. 2d 1225 (Fla., 1978), to this case and hold that Sections 812.012 to 812.028, Florida Statutes (1977), are constitutionally sound because reasona [*763] ble persons have adequate notice of the types of co…
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ne of which happens to be by acts formerly prosecuted as ‘receiving stolen property ” under sections 812.031, Florida Statutes (1975), and 811.16, Florida Statutes (1955). Colvin v. State, 445 So. 2d 657, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla.1978); Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). As the first district observed in Colvin, 445 So. 2d at 660. It is clear that the legislature recognized that it had expanded the definition of theft. Section 812.025, Florida S…
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Dunnigan v. State, 364 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1978)