STEVEN RAY VARNEY, 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.
Appellant Varney challenged his stalking conviction as facially unconstitutional under the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines. The court affirmed the constitutional validity of the stalking statute but reversed and remanded to correct the probation order, which erroneously listed the offense as aggravated stalking rather than the stalking conviction to which appellant actually pled no contest.
The stalking statute is not facially unconstitutional as vague or overbroad. The probation order must be corrected to accurately reflect that appellant was convicted of stalking, not aggravated stalking.
[1] A statute proscribing stalking is not facially unconstitutional as vague and overbroad.
[2] A probation order must accurately reflect the offense of conviction.
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“the stalking statute, section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), is both vague and overbroad, and therefore facially unconstitutional”
States the appellant's legal argument that the court rejected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Steven Ray Varney was convicted of stalking under section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), and entered a plea of no contest to this of…
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 Vagueness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his conviction for the offense of stalking, asserting that the statute proscribing this offense is facially unconstitutional. He also contends that the probation order erroneously lists the offense of which he was convicted. The state concedes the probation order improperly describes the offense as aggravated stalking when, in fact, appellant pled no contest to the lesser offense of stalking.1 We therefore remand for the purpose of correcting this error. We affirm as to the constitutional issue. Appellant argues that the stalking statute, section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), is both vague and overbroad, and therefore facially -unconstitutional. We find that the arguments presented by appellant were substantially addressed in Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), in which the court found the statute valid. See also, Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994);2 State v. Pallas, 1 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 442 (Fla. 11th Cir. June 9, 1993), and State v. Bossie, 1 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 465 (Fla.Brevard County Ct. June 27, 1993). Based upon the authorities cited and the reasons expressed in Pallas v. State, we reject appellant’s constitutional challenge. However, we certify, as being of great public importance, the following question:
IS SECTION 784.048, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1992) FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VAGUE AND OVER-BROAD?
We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for entry of a corrected probation order. ZEHMER, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur. . It should be noted that appellant pled no contest to several other offenses as well; these convictions are not at issue in the instant case,
. Jurisdiction accepted, Bouters v. State, 640 So. 2d 1106, (Fla.1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tremmel, 644 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. In similar challenges, the statute has been found to be facially constitutional by each of the other District Courts of Appeal. See State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We agree with our colleagues of the other District Courts of Appeal and find the challenged statute constitutional and, t…
-
Huffine v. State, 648 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…to be facially constitutional by all of the district courts of appeal. See Steffa v. State, 645 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Tremmel, 644 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review granted, 640 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1994). We affirm, but certify, as being of great public importance, the following…
-
Perez v. State, 648 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…to be facially constitutional by all of the district courts of appeal. See Steffa v. State, 645 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Tremmel, 644 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review granted, 640 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1994). We affirm, but certify, as being of great public importance, the following…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)