WARREN WILLIAM MCCLISH, 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 statute under which the appellant was charged was not unconstitutionally vague and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire questioning.
Appellant was charged under Fla. Stat. § 951.22(1) for possessing a handcuff key while a prisoner. He also appealed the denial of his attorney's right…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s contention that section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes (1979)1 under which he was charged because a handcuff key was found on his person while he was a prisoner, is unconstitutionally vague, is without merit. The statute meets the void-for-vagueness test set forth in Sanicola v. State, 384 So. 2d 152 (Fla.1980); Russ v. State, 400 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The appellant has not shown an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying his attorney the right to question pro spective jurors on voir dire about their personal television habits. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1979).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, COBB and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . § 951.22(1), Florida Statutes (1979) provides:
It is unlawful except through regular channels as duly authorized by the sheriff or officer in charge to introduce into or possess upon the grounds of any county detention facility ... any of the following articles which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this act, to-wit: ... any instrumentality of any nature that may be or is intended to be used as an aid in effecting or attempting to effect an escape from a county facility.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. OXX, 417 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…e process. . Section 951.22, Florida Statutes (1979) has previously been upheld under constitutional attacks for vagueness, see, e.g., State v. Ashcraft, 378 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1979); Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); McClish v. State, 404 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and overbreath. See, e.g., State v. Ashcraft. . This definition of possession has been stated various ways. See, e.g., Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (constructive possession entails (1) dominion and control,…
Authorities Cited
- Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Sanicola v. State, 384 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1980)
- Lendra Elaine Russ v. State, 400 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)