GAMALY ARGENTINA HOLLIS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Communications directed at a specific person under section 784.048(1) can include social media postings not sent directly to an individual if they sufficiently describe the person to make identification possible and are reasonably likely to come to the targeted person's attention.
[1] Under Florida's cyberstalking statute, section 784.048(1), communications directed at a specific person may include social media postings not sent directly to the individ…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“directed at a specific person under section 784.048(1) can include communications with third parties including social media postings that are not sent directly to an individual [but] may nonetheless be directed at an individual in a number of ways, including sufficiently describing the person in such a way as to make their specific identification possible”
Court's explanation of the scope of cyberstalking statute
Gamaly Argentina Hollis was convicted in Miami-Dade County Court of a crime involving communications directed at a specific person. The case involved …
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 14, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1530 Lower Tribunal No. B22-18897 ________________
Gamaly Argentina Hollis, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Rivera Correa, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Logue v. Book, 297 So. 3d 605, 611–12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (explaining that “directed at a specific person” under section 784.048(1) “can include communications with third parties” including “social media postings that are not sent directly to an individual [but] may nonetheless be directed at an individual in a number of ways, including . . . sufficiently describing the person in such a way as to make their specific identification possible” and noting that “[s]uch posts may also be designed so as to be reasonably likely to come to the attention of the targeted person, even if indirectly) (emphasis added); see also Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003) (“Generally, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction that is supported by competent, substantial evidence.”); Hernandez v. State, 979 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The trial court’s discretion is broad, and the decision to admit evidence will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eusebio Hernandez v. State, 979 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Logue v. Book, 297 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)