WILLIAM BUCOLO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; RONALD A. SIMPSON, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JAMES R. AGUT, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIAM BUCOLO AND JAMES R. AGUT, APPELLANTS, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1975-07-09
Nos. 38280, 38279, 38278 and 38424
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ„ concur.
316 So. 2d 551 Florida Supreme Court (1975) Negative Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the prior decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with established standards.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants were convicted of violating Florida's obscenity statute. This Court initially upheld the statute's constitutionality, but the U.S. Supreme …

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.

Opinion of the Court
BOYD, Justice.

BOYD, Justice.

These cases are before us pursuant to a mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States,1 decided May 20, 1975, reversing a decision of this Court.2 In these consolidated appeals Appellants originally contested their convictions of violation of Section 847.011, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Florida obscenity statute. The trial court having held that statute to be constitutional Appellants challenged that ruling in their direct appeal to this Court; we upheld the judgment of the trial court based on our recent decision in State v. Papp, 3 inter alia, which had become final before the cases of Hamling 4 and Jenkins 5 were called to our attention. After this Court’s decision sub judice was rendered, Appellants filed their petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which granted the petition. Having considered this cause in light of Jenkins 6 and Kois v. Wisconsin, 7 that Court reversed this Court’s holding and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Accordingly, in view of this Mandate and in light of our recent holding in Fontana v. State, Fla., 316 So. 2d 543 opinion filed July 9, 1975, this cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in which the standards established in Miller v. California8 can be applied.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ„ concur. 1 . Styled: William Bucolo, Ronald A. Simpson and James R. Agut v. Florida, 421 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1651, 44 L.Ed.2d 84. 2 . Bucolo v. State, 303 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1974). 3 . 298 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1974). 4 . Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). 5 . Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 94 S.Ct. 2750, 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). 6 . Id. 7 . 408 U.S. 229, 92 S.Ct. 2245, 33 L.Ed.2d 312 (1972). 8 . 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Blannie Mae Spears v. State, 337 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1976)
    …S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). . On receipt of the mandate issued in Bucolo v. Florida, supra, we “remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in which the standards established in Miller v. California can be applied.” Bucolo v. State, 316 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1975) (footnote omitted). Bucolo and code-fendants then applied to the United States Supreme Court for writ of mandamus, arguing that this Court’s disposition on remand “serve[d] to deprive them of the exoneration to which [the United States S…
  • Johnson v. State, 351 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1977)
    …tatute 847.011. Those cases include Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1973); State v. Papp, 298 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1974); Bucolo v. State, 303 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1974), reversed (per curiam), 421 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1651, 44 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975), confirmed 316 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1975).” It is obvious that appellant has no colora-ble basis on which to bring his appeal here. The constitutionality of this statute had been determined, and the only issue that can be reasonably raised at this point is whether the statute, a…
  • Bucolo v. State, 332 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1976)
    …PER CURIAM. We reconsider our opinion in the instant case appearing at 316 So. 2d 551 (1975), pursuant to the direction of the United States Supreme Court in Bucolo v. Adkins, — U.S. —, 96 S.Ct. 1086, 47 L.Ed.2d 301, 44 U.S.L.W. 3500 (1976). That Court, referring to its opinion in Bucolo v. Florida, 421 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1651, 44 L.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw