EDWARD JAMES GROOVER, 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 held that Florida's Hate Crimes Statute is not facially unconstitutional and that the as-applied challenge was not preserved for appeal.
[1] Florida's Hate Crimes Statute, section 775.085, is constitutional on its face, as it applies only to bias-motivated crimes where the perpetrator intentionally selects the…
[2] A constitutional challenge to a statute as applied is not preserved for appeal if it was not raised in the trial court.
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 intelligenceDefendant pled nolo contendere to charges including hate crimes and culpable negligence. He appealed his sentence, arguing the hate crimes statute was…
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 Unconstitutional As Applied cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward James Groover appeals the sentences imposed after he pled nolo contendere to one count of manslaughter by culpable negligence which evidenced prejudice based on race, contrary to sections 782.07 and 775.-085, Florida Statutes (1991), and two counts of culpable negligence which evidenced prejudice based on race, contrary to sections 784.05(2) and 775.085, Florida Statutes (1991). Groover argues that section 775.085, commonly referred to as Florida’s Hate Crimes Statute, is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied. We affirm.
We reject Groover’s argument that section 775.085 is facially unconstitutional. In State v. Stadler, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1994), the supreme court rejected arguments that the statute is both vague and overbroad and punishes pure thought and expression in violation of the First Amendment by placing a narrowing construction on the statute. The supreme court held that section 775.085 “applies only to bias-motivated crimes,” which was defined as “any crime wherein the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of the victim’s ‘race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.’ ” Id. at 1077.
We also reject Groover’s argument that reversal is required because section 775.085 is unconstitutional as applied. This issue was not raised below and is therefore not preserved for appeal. Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982). Groover entered a plea of nolo contendere on March 13, 1992, without reservation of the right to appeal. No facts regarding the offenses were placed on the record at the plea hearing. Groover’s counsel, at the sentencing hearing on May 8, 1992, asked that the imposition of sentencing be delayed so that she could file a motion attacking the enhancement of the sentence under section 775.085. The trial judge denied the request for a continuance, noting that Groover had filed a demand for speedy trial and then entered a plea. Defense counsel never actually raised the issue of the constitutionality of the statute at the sentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dubose v. State, 75 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…see generally Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93, 105 (Fla.2002), the same is not true for as-applied challenges. See Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126, 1129-30 (Fla.1982); Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665, 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Groover v. State, 632 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because Appellant did not present this issue to the trial court, he failed to preserve it for appellate review. Second, Appellant claims he was entitled to judgment of acquittal on felony murder because he could not have c…
Authorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994)