HOWELL PEACOCK, 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 affirmed the conviction, finding the constitutional challenges to the RICO Act to be without merit.
Howell Peacock was charged with violating Florida's RICO Act, and his motion to dismiss based on unconstitutionality was denied. He pleaded nolo conte…
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
Howell Peacock was charged with violating section 943.462(3), Florida Statutes (1977), Florida’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. His motion to dismiss on the basis that the RICO Act is unconstitutional was denied, and he pleaded nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional challenges.
The Second Judicial Circuit public defender was appointed to prosecute Peacock’s appeal. In his brief filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the public defender addresses the constitutional challenges raised below and represents that the record does not support these challenges.1
We have considered the record and the constitutional issues. We find they are without merit and, accordingly, affirm the conviction. State v. Whiddon, 384 So. 2d 1269 (Fla.1980); Moorehead v. State, 383 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1980).
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. . The public defender, in his Anders brief, requested that Peacock be given an opportunity to file a brief in his own behalf. The clerk of the Supreme Court has attempted to notify Peacock at his last known address that he had until a date certain to file a brief in his own behalf, but the notification was not accepted at this last known address because he was not residing there. The clerk’s notification was marked “return to sender.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)…held that the policy disfavoring usurious interest rates could not override explicit contractual terms. See Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs of Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1985); Morgan Walton Properties, Inc. v. International City Bank & Trust Co., 404 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1981) (upholding a choice-of-law provision even though the parties’ purpose in making it was to avoid the restrictive effects of Florida law); Continental, 395 So. 2d at 507. This Court in Continental elucidated the public policy exception by i…
-
Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012)…t provide for less [*81] than the statutory allotted time period to bring a contractual claim was not a sufficient public policy concern to render the choice-of-law provision unenforceable); Morgan Walton Props., Inc. v. Int’l City Bank & Trust Co., 404 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla.1981) (“The ‘public policy’ against usury ... was not so strong as to overcome the policy in favor of giving effect to the expressed intentions of contracting parties, even though as a factual matter the designation may indeed have been m…
-
Title & Tr. Co. OF Fla. v. Parker, 468 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…d NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . Mr. Parker testified that the remaining $25,-000 was to be paid as a commission to brokers who negotiated the loan, but was never paid. . This case is not controlled by Morgan Walton Properties v. International City Bank, 404 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1981) or Continental Mortgage Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 395 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1981). In those cases, the parties executed, in states other than Florida, notes that charged interest greater than the maximum rate allowed by Florida law. Tho…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- THE Florida BAR v. Byron, 384 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Coomes, 383 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1980)
- Moorehead v. State, 383 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1980)