DAVID SARDIELLO AND BAL ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANTS,
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.
Florida appellants challenged the constitutionality of the state's obscenity statute (section 847.011) after being charged with possession of obscene materials with intent to distribute. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute is constitutional based on consistent prior precedent.
The statute is constitutional. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that it had consistently upheld the constitutionality of section 847.011 in prior cases.
[1] A state statute making it unlawful to possess obscene materials with intent to distribute is constitutional.
[2] Possession of six or more identical or similar obscene materials creates a presumption of intent to distribute.
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“We find that there is directly applicable legal precedent. We have consistently upheld the constitutionality of section 847.011.”
This establishes the Court's reliance on prior precedent to uphold the statute without re-examining the constitutional question.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Sardiello and Bal Enterprises, Inc. were charged with possession of obscene materials with intent to distribute in violation of section 847.011,…
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 Presumptive Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Acting Chief Justice.
This cause is before the Court on appeal of a judgment of the County Court of Dade County. In rendering judgment the court passed upon the constitutionality of a state law. The notice of appeal was filed on January 11, 1980. This Court has jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. (1972).
The appellants were charged with possession of obscene materials with intent to distribute in violation of section 847.011, Florida Statutes (1977). Section 847.011(1) provides:
(l)(a) A person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show or transmute, or has in his possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, sadistic, or masochistic book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion-picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument of indecent use, or purporting to be for indecent use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person to do or assist in doing, either knowingly or innocently, any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) The knowing possession by any person of six or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of para graph (a) is presumptive evidence of the violation of said paragraph.
Appellants moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional. After denial of the motion to dismiss, pleas of nolo contendere were made, with specific reservation of the right to appeal the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss.
We find that there is directly applicable legal precedent. We have consistently upheld the constitutionality of section 847.011. State v. Kraham, 360 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1978), appeal dismissed, 440 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 1415, 59 L.Ed.2d 630 (1979); Johnson v. State, 351 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1977); Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1978).
The judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990)…upheld a conviction for selling obscene magazines and reaffirmed the principles that obscenity is not protected by the first and fourteenth amendments and that it is subject to regulation under the police power of the states. In Sardiello v. State, 394 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1981), we again upheld the statute where the defendants had been charged with possession of obscene material with intent to sell. Moreover, we addressed the issue presented in the instant case in State v. Kraham, 360 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1978), appe…
-
State v. Long, 544 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…idered the validity of section 847.011 under the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution, the court relied upon Kraham to uphold the constitutionality of this statute subsequent to the adoption of article I, section 23. See Sardiello v. State, 394 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1981) (upholding section 847.011, Florida Statutes (1977)). In addition, we are unaware of any indication that the drafters of article I, section 23 were concerned with broadening the right to privacy as it relates to obscene materials or that…
Authorities Cited
- Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1973)
- Johnson v. State, 351 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Kraham, 360 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1978)
- Ramsey v. New York, 440 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1979)
- Century 21 Real Est. Corp. v. Nev. Real Est. Advisory Comm'n, 440 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1979)
- Kraham v. Florida, 440 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1979)