LESLIE LAINE EATON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Leslie Eaton was convicted under Florida Statute § 796.05 for living off the earnings of prostitutes through her operation of escort services. On appeal, she challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague, but the court affirmed her conviction, holding the statute provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct.
The statute is constitutional and does not violate the void-for-vagueness doctrine. The court affirmed that the language is specific enough to give persons of common intelligence adequate warning that using funds knowingly derived from prostitution for personal benefit is illegal.
[1] A statute is constitutional against a void-for-vagueness challenge if it provides persons of common intelligence adequate warning of the proscribed conduct.
[2] Individuals of common intelligence understand that using funds knowingly derived from prostitution for personal benefit is an illegal act.
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“A statute will withstand constitutional scrutiny under a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is specific enough to give persons of common intelligence and understanding adequate warning of the proscribed conduct.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating void-for-vagueness challenges that the court applied to uphold the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant operated three escort services that provided prostitutes to clients. The businesses were initially set up by appellant's fiancé, who later e…
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 Void-For-Vagueness Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant Leslie Eaton was charged with and convicted for violation of section 796.-05, Florida Statutes (1983).1 She was tried by the court without a jury, following a plea of not guilty.
Appellant was involved in the operation of three “escort services” which in fact provided prostitutes for the clients. The three services were initially set up by appellant’s fiance, but at some point in 1983 or 1984, he ended his affiliation with the businesses and, thereafter, appellant continued to operate them. It is undisputed that appellant received money from these escort services, both from her fiance when he was running them and from her own efforts after he left the businesses.
It is appellant’s contention on appeal that her conviction should be reversed because the language of the statute, that is, the phrase “to live off the earnings of [a prostitute],” is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. We disagree with appellant’s contention and, therefore, affirm.
The Florida Supreme Court set out the relevant test for void-for-vagueness challenges in Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982): “A statute will withstand constitutional scrutiny under a void-for-vague ness challenge if it is specific enough to give persons of common intelligence and understanding adequate warning of the proscribed conduct.” Id. at 1130 (citation omitted). It is apodictic that prostitution is illegal. We find that people of common intelligence and understanding would know that using for personal benefit funds knowingly derived from prostitution is also an illegal act. The purpose of the statute is to prohibit prostitution and all incidental acts, such as pimping, which foster and encourage prostitution. Legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional. State v. Lick, 390 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1980).
For the reasons stated, we hold section 796.05 to be constitutional. We also hold that no other reversible error has been shown with regard to appellant’s conviction.
Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Section 796.05 reads in relevant part:
(1) [I]t shall be unlawful for anyone to live off the earnings of any other person with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such earnings are derived from prostitution.
(2) Anyone violating this section shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree....
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…hree of which we discuss. We have considered each of the issues presented by the appellant including his attack on the constitutionality of section 796.05, Florida Statutes (1983). His constitutional challenge is without merit. See Eaton v. State, 481 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We affirm his conviction. We do find merit, however, in appellant’s argument that the court erred in sentencing him. The sentencing guidelines recommended any nonstate prison sanction. The court instead sentenced appellant to t…
Authorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Lick, 390 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1980)