NELSON WATTS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Loitering And Prowling Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, which affirmed a judgment and sentence of the County Court of Polk County. Petitioner was found guilty of loitering and prowling in violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981). On appeal to the circuit court, petitioner challenged section 856.021 as being facially unconstitutional for vagueness. Although the Florida Supreme Court considered such a challenge and rejected it in State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1975), we are asked now to rule otherwise as a result of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983), which declared the California loitering statute unconstitutionally vague on its face. While some of the authorities and reasoning relied upon in Ecker have now been disapproved in Kolender, we feel that section 856.021 is so much more definitive than the California statute as to render the result in Ecker still valid.
The petition is denied.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watts v. State, 463 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1985)…McDONALD, Justice. This case is before us to review the district court decision in Watts v. State, 447 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), which expressly declared valid Florida’s loitering and prowling statute, section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981).1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. At Watts’ trial for loitering and prowling the state presen…
-
State v. Rash, 458 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…asoning in Ecker have since been disapproved in Kolender;5 nevertheless, section 856.021 is still much more definitive than the California statute and hence Ecker still controls. See State v. Hurst, 448 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Watts v. State, 447 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We agree with our sister courts. REVERSED and REMANDED for trial. COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. . District courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review county court orders finding a statute to be unconstitutional. See § 2…
-
State v. Hurst, 448 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. We agree with Watts v. State, 447 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) that the constitutionality of the Florida loitering and prowling statute, Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981), as upheld in State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1975) is not affected by Kolender v. Lawson, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct.…
Authorities Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)