STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE POTTS, JR., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Unconstitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have on appeal Potts v. State, 526 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which declared unconstitutional a portion of section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Jurisdiction is mandatory. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Having reviewed the entire record in this case, we have determined that the district court’s decision below is an eminently correct statement of the law. The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here. We therefore approve and adopt the district court’s opinion in its entirety as our own. Section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1985), is facially unconstitutional to the extent it purports to penalize a person who is under indictment with greater severity than one who is accused of no crime.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 543 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1989)…or knowingly caused [great bodily harm to (victim)]] [permanent disability to (victim)]] [permanent disfigurement to (victim) ]] b. [used a deadly weapon.] c. fknew or should have known that (victim) was pregnant.] 3. The court in State v. Potts 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1988) found section 790.07(2) “unconstitutional to the extent it purports to penalize a person who is under indictment.” Paragraph 2 of the jury instruction on page 99 of the manual, therefore, should be amended by striking “[under indictment o…
-
Yeshuwa Yisrael v. State, 65 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…operly considered pending charges during sentencing); Seays v. State, 789 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court improperly considered pending attempted murder charge, of which the defendant was ultimately acquitted); cf. State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1988) (“The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here.”). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court questioned…
-
Titus Seays v. State, 789 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…charge in sentencing him.1 He [*1210] relies on cases such as Reese v. State, 639 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(con-sideration of “unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct” at sentencing “violates fundamental due process.”); State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1988)(“The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime.”). In Epprecht v. State, 488 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the trial court in sentenc…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Potts v. State, 526 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)