CLARENCE GISSENDANNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the terms 'narcotic,' 'hypnotic,' and 'excitative' in the statute are sufficiently definite to satisfy constitutional standards.
[1] A defendant who pleads no contest, reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss, cannot raise factual issues that the state was relieved of proving by…
[2] Questions of fact may not be reserved upon a plea of no contest.
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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with possessing marijuana in a detention facility under a statute prohibiting introduction of narcotic, hypnotic, or excitative …
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Chief Judge.
Appellant Gissendanner was charged and convicted of introduction or possession of a narcotic, hypnotic, or excitative drug — marijuana — into or upon the grounds of a county detention facility in violation of section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes (1975). In a motion to dismiss the information against him, Gissendanner asserted that section 951.22(1) is invalid in that the terms “narcotic,” “hypnotic,” and “excitative” are unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied Gissen-danner’s motion thus inherently passing on the constitutionality of the statute.1 Gis-sendanner subsequently pled no contest, specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. Judgment and sentence were entered. The denial of Gissendanner’s motion to dismiss is now before us for review.
Gissendanner’s principal contention is that marijuana does not fall within the categories of drugs described in section 951.22(1) and, therefore, application of the statute to marijuana is unconstitutional. We are precluded from entertaining this argument, however. Whether marijuana is a narcotic, hypnotic, or excitative drug is a factual issue which, by his plea of no contest, Gissendanner relieved the state of the burden to prove.2 Questions of fact may not be reserved upon a plea of no contest.3
The constitutionality of section 951.22(1) is a legal issue, and may properly be reserved. We find, however, that the terms “narcotic,” “hypnotic,” and “excitative” are sufficiently definite to satisfy constitutional standards.4 Accordingly, the judgment entered below is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
. Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976). See also, Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977).
. State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971).
. As demonstrated by appellant’s brief, these terms may be readily understood by reference to a dictionary.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (767 total)
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…d, 544 So. 2d at 1006. Although the entry of a guilty plea foreclosed the defendant’s ability to appeal events occurring before the entry of the plea other than a claim that the trial court lacked subject matter'jurisdiction, see Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 902-03 (Fla.1979),5 the willingness of the appellate courts to correct unpreserved sentencing errors as “fundamental” extended to errors that occurred following a guilty plea. See Wood, 544 So. 2d at 1005-06; see also Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 13…
-
Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)…teen years before the Legislature enacted section 924.051(4), this Court construed a similar statute and concluded that it foreclosed the right to appeal based on most matters that took place before the entry of a guilty plea. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 902 (Fla. [*117] 1979).6 Despite the statutory restriction on the right to appeal, this Court held that defendants who pleaded guilty could nevertheless raise on appeal a limited number of issues that occurred contemporaneously with the entry of th…1 / 2
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…ions to correct sentencing eiTors under rule 3.800(b) to thirty days. The other issue immediately before us is the effect of the Act on the proposed rule on appeals from pleas of guilty or nolo contende-re without reservation. In Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979), this Court addressed the validity of section 924.06(3), Florida Statutes (1977), which read: A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal shall have no right to a direct appeal. Suc…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 767 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Hutchins v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977)
- Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976)