MOSE HARRIS, 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.
Mose Harris challenges his conviction for sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church, arguing that Florida Statutes section 893.101 violates due process by eliminating knowledge of the illicit nature of a substance as an element of the offense. The court upholds the statute against constitutional challenge, affirming the conviction.
Section 893.101 does not violate due process. The Florida Legislature has the authority to define conduct as criminal without requiring specific criminal intent or guilty knowledge, and section 893.101 clearly expresses the Legislature's intent to eliminate the guilty knowledge requirement for chapter 893 offenses.
[1] A statute expressly dispensing with guilty knowledge in criminal offenses controls over the general presumption that the legislature intends statutes defining criminal vi…
[2] The Florida Legislature has expressly stated its intent to eliminate the guilty knowledge requirement for offenses under chapter 893.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is within the power of the legislature to declare conduct criminal without requiring specific criminal intent to achieve a certain result; that is, the legislature may punish conduct without regard to the mental attitude of the offender, so that the general intent of the accused to do the act is deemed to give rise to a presumption of intent to achieve the criminal result.”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for statutes eliminating knowledge or intent requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted of sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church in violation of section 893.13(l)(e)1, Florida Statutes. He receive…
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mose Harris appeals a judgment of conviction and habitual felony offender sentence for the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church in violation of section 893.13(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (2004). Among other issues, appellant argues that, because section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2004), eliminates knowledge of the illicit nature of a substance as an element of the offense, his convictions violate the due process clauses of the federal and Florida constitutions. We cannot agree.
Section 893.101 has been upheld against challenges based on the due process clause. See Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 915 So. 2d 1198 (Fla.2005); Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Reynolds v. State, 842 So. 2d 46, 47-8 (Fla.2002)(quoting State v. Gray, 435 So. 2d 816, 819-20 (Fla.1983)(“It is within the power of the legislature to declare conduct criminal without requiring specific criminal intent to achieve a certain result; that is, the legislature may punish conduct without regard to the mental attitude of the offender, so that the general intent of the accused to do the act is deemed to give rise to a presumption of intent to achieve the criminal result....”)); State v. Giorgetti 868 So. 2d 512, 516 (Fla.2004)(“[W]e will ordinarily presume that the Legislature intends statutes defining a criminal violation to contain a knowledge requirement absent an express indication of a contrary intent. An express provision dispensing with guilty knowledge will always control, of course, since in that instance the Legislature will have made its intent clear.”).
By section 893.101, the Florida Legislature has clearly stated its express intent to eliminate the guilty knowledge requirement for chapter 893 offenses.
We affirm all issues raised on appeal.
KAHN, C.J., ERVIN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)…owledged in Chicone, 684 So. 2d at 739-40, and Scott, 808 So. 2d at 169. Since the enactment of section 893.101, each of the district courts of appeal has ruled that the statute does not violate the requirements of due process. See Harris v. State, 932 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 929 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Lanier v. State, 74 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The United State…
-
Jasper Little v. State, 77 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
-
State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…constitutional due process challenges were raised and ultimately rejected by the appellate courts across the state. See e.g., Williams v. State, 45 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 37 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Harris v. State, 932 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Taylor, 929 So. 2d at 665; Tolbert v. State, 925 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 901 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review denied, 928 So. 2d S36 (Fla.2006);…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Gray, 435 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. McCORMICK, 868 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2004)
- Reynolds v. State, 842 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2002)
- Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Schuyler, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Wright v. State, 915 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2005)