STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LESLIE LAWTON, A/K/A LINZIE LAWTON, 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 trial court erred in refusing to apply section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes, which mandates driving privilege suspension upon conviction for marijuana possession.
The trial court refused to apply a statute mandating driving privilege suspension for marijuana possession, deeming it unconstitutional. The state app…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse that portion of the trial court’s sentencing order refusing to apply the provisions of section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1991). That section mandates suspension of an offender’s driving privileges upon conviction of, among other offenses, possession of marijuana.
The trial court, apparently because of a ruling in an earlier case before it, ruled that the statute was “unconstitutional”, and refused to apply it here. Appellee has filed no brief and the record reflects no discussion of, or basis for, the court’s ruling. The state relies on general constitutional law principles favoring approval of legislative enactments such as section 322.-055(1), as well as other states’ support of such enactments. See, e.g., State v. Yu, 400 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1981), appeal dismissed, Wall v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1134, 102 S.Ct. 988, 71 L.Ed.2d 286 (1982); State v. Smith, 58 N.J. 202, 276 A. 2d 369 (1971).
We reverse and remand with directions that the appellee be given an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement giving rise to the sentence involved herein. If the plea agreement and sentence stand, the sentence should be in accord with the provisions of section 322.055(1).
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. YU, 400 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1981)
- Blalock v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1134 (U.S. 1982)
- Cowgill v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1134 (U.S. 1982)