DAVID LEWIS GILBERT, 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 the special condition of the sentence contravenes case law and that the statute is not vague or overbroad.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated stalking and sentenced with improper scoring and a special condition. The state conceded improper scoring, and t…
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 Legal Constraint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of his judgment of conviction and sentences for aggravated stalking. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant pled no contest to three counts of aggravated stalking. For each count, appellant was sentenced to community control with the special condition that he serve 11 months and 30 days in county jail. Credit for time served was given, and the sentences are to be served concurrently. On the guidelines scoresheet used to arrive at this sentence, appellant was scored for being under legal constraint at the time the offenses were committed. The state concedes that this scoring was improper and recommends a remand on this point. We note that the sentence is also improper as the special condition contravenes ease law. See, State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1994).
We find the remaining issue in this appeal to be without merit. Appellant argues that section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), is vague and overbroad and is, therefore, unconstitutional. We rejected substantially similar arguments in Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) citing Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and other decisions. Accordingly, we affirm on this issue, and, as we did in Varney, 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 resentencing.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilbert v. State, 659 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1995)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Gilbert v. State, 639 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), wherein the district court certified the following question: Is section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), facially unconstitutional as vague and overbroad? We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have fo…
-
Salatino v. State, 644 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…992), is vague and overbroad and is, therefore, unconstitutional. We rejected substantially similar arguments in Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citing Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)), and Gilbert v. State, 639 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm on this issue, and, as we did in Varney and Gilbert, certify as [*1036] being of great public importance, the following question: IS SECTION 784.048, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1992), FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTION…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1994)
- Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)