ROBERT PEREZ, 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 stalking statute is facially constitutional. The court certified a question of great public importance regarding its constitutionality.
Robert Perez pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated stalking and was adjudicated guilty. He challenged the constitutionality of the stalking statute.…
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 Facial Unconstitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Robert Perez challenges the trial court’s order upholding the constitutionality of section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), the stalking statute. Perez was adjudicated guilty of aggravated stalking, a third degree felony, following his nolo contendere plea.
In similar challenges, the statute has been found 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 question:
IS SECTION 784.048, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1992), FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD?
CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…which it might have brought.” See § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (1997). . We distinguish for review purposes orders dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds. See, e.g., Decelle v. Kenyon, 667 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In that circumstance where order of dismissal is final rather than nonfinal we have final appeal jurisdiction under rule 9.110. . The concept of forum non conveniens by its very nature encompasses both section 47.122 and rule 1…
-
Maja Stock v. Stock, 677 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ida court had priority over the Swiss court. The absence of any findings as to why the trial court proceeded without addressing the motion to stay leaves us to guess why the trial court disregarded the pending Swiss proceedings. Cf. Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (trial court erred in granting motion to abate by failing to make any findings as to which forum was more convenient or appropriate and in failing to specify its basis for deferring jurisdiction).2 There was ample reason for the…1 / 2
-
Decelle v. Suzanna Elizabeth Kenyon, 667 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…990). Moreover, we do not interpret the trial court’s ruling as one of the absence of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we must still reverse because the court failed to make findings or to express reasons for declining jurisdiction. See Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The trial court did not have the benefit of Ennis when the order of dismissal was rendered. However, we apply the law as of the time of the determination of the appeal. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Von Stetina, 47…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Varney v. State, 638 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- State v. Tremmel, 644 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Steffa v. State, 645 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- LaTULIP v. State, 645 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)