STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT L. CROSSNO, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s determination that section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1995), is unconstitutional. We are the last of the district courts to consider the constitutionality of this statute. Each of the other four district courts has found this statute to be constitutional, albeit employing different rationales. See State v. Keirn, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1144, — So. 2d - (Fla. 4th DCA May 6, 1998); State v. Gloster, 703 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, — So. 2d (Fla. May 15, 1998)(No. 92,235); Pirtle v. State, 700 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Raulerson v. State, 699 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), review granted, 709 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1998).
We join in the view espoused by the Fourth District in State v. Keirn and hold that the statute is constitutional. Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raulerson v. State, 763 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2000)…d analyzed whether section 322.34(1) is unconstitutional. Each of those district courts, along with the Third District in Pirtle v. State, 700 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (adopting Raulerson analysis), and the Second District in State v. Crossno, 713 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (adopting Keim analysis), determined that section 322.34(1) is constitutional, but the courts did so on different grounds. We now briefly summarize the analysis employed by the district courts in Raulerson, Gloster, and Keim. [*28…1 / 2
-
State v. Fessenden, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999)…PER CURIAM. We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Fessenden v. State, 713 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution. After further consideration, we have determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.…
-
Fessenden v. State, 52 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…tified question. State v. Amos, 727 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1998) (table decision). Based on the reasoning in Amos, this court also reversed Mr. Fessenden’s judgments and sentences, certifying the same question as was certified in Amos. Fessenden v. State, 713 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The supreme court declined to review the question in Mr. Fessenden’s case. State v. Fessenden, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1999). From the limited record in this case, we cannot determine when or if Mr. Fessen-den was in prison as a re…1 / 2
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
- State v. Gloster, 703 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Raulerson v. State, 699 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Pirtle v. State, 700 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Alvarez v. State, 700 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)