Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Bouters v. State

Bouters v. State

634 So. 2d 246, 1994 WL 94307
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 25, 1994
Docket93-504
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 634 So. 2d 246 (Bouters v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bouters v. State, 634 So. 2d 246, 1994 WL 94307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

634 So.2d 246 (1994)

Scott BOUTERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 25, 1994.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and S.C. Van Voorhees, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Parker D. Thomson, and Carol A. Licko, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Scott Bouters, was charged with the offense of aggravated stalking pursuant to section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), known as the Florida Stalking *247 Law. He moved to dismiss on the ground that such statute is facially unconstitutional because of vagueness and overbreadth. Following denial of that motion, he pled nolo contendere and then filed the instant appeal. Without belaboring the issue, we find the aforesaid statute to be facially constitutional, and basically agree with the analysis of that statute as found in State v. Pallas, 1 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 442 (Fla. 11th Cir. June 9, 1993). In respect to the argument that the definition of the word "harasses" in subsection (1)(a) of the statute is vague because of the nonspecific term "serves no legitimate purpose," we agree with the analysis in State v. Bossie, 1 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 465, 466 (Fla. Brevard County Ct. June 22, 1993), that the statute, read in its entirety, renders that particular phrase superfluous, hence, harmless.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Luplow v. State
897 P.2d 463 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995)
Blount v. State
654 So. 2d 126 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Polson v. State
654 So. 2d 127 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Saiya v. State
654 So. 2d 128 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Daniels v. State
658 So. 2d 927 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Folsom v. State
654 So. 2d 128 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Koshel v. State
659 So. 2d 232 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Bouters v. State
659 So. 2d 235 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
State v. Gonzalez
651 So. 2d 185 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Harriman v. State
650 So. 2d 226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Milline v. State
646 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Huffine v. State
648 So. 2d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Perez v. State
648 So. 2d 784 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. Tremmel
644 So. 2d 102 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Saiya v. State
641 So. 2d 975 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Blount v. State
641 So. 2d 200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Kostenski v. State
641 So. 2d 199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. Kahles
644 So. 2d 512 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Varney v. State
638 So. 2d 1063 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Folsom v. State
638 So. 2d 591 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
634 So. 2d 246, 1994 WL 94307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouters-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.