JAMES WALTER BILLUPS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Vagueness cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, James Walter Billups, challenges his judgment and sentence for loitering in violation of section 24-43, City of Tampa Code (1989). Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, attacking the ordinance on constitutional vagueness grounds. When the trial court denied his motion, appellant pled no contest to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional ruling by the trial court.
The Florida Supreme Court has now decided this issue in Holliday v. City of Tampa, 619 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1993), determining that section 24-43, City of Tampa Code (1989) is facially unconstitutional. Based on the authority and precedent of Holliday, we therefore reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence for violation of section 24-43, City of Tampa Code. The other arguments raised by appellant are not properly addressed in this appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dalton Santiago v. Tabatha Santiago, 51 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…sets and allocation of liabilities.”). The trial court may have also believed that the marital tax liability was less than $101,000 (as argued by the husband). But again, the trial court failed to make a finding to this effect. See Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that before trial court may impose tax liability solely on one party, “it must first determine the amount of the tax liability and then give appropriate consideration to the financial consequences this liability will…
-
Mohamed S. Rashid v. Shanta Rashid, 35 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ng party.” Duffey v. Duffey, 972 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In ordering this protection, the court should consider the “availability and cost of such insurance and the financial impact it will have on the former husband.” Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The final judgment should i…
-
Schere v. Rhoda Schere, 645 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…t the trial court erred in ordering the husband to purchase a [*22] life insurance policy or an annuity as security for alimony, without considering the cost and financial impact on the husband. See Sobelman, 541 So. 2d at 1154 n. 2; Loman v. Loman, 633 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make that determination, and affirm the judgment in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holliday v. City OF Tampa, 619 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1993)