Huffine v. State
This text of 655 So. 2d 103 (Huffine v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Terry Michael HUFFINE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, and Parker D. Thomson and Carol A. Licko, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
SHAW, Judge.
We have for review Huffine v. State, 648 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), wherein the district court certified:
Is section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), facially unconstitutional as vague and overbroad?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We recently upheld the constitutionality of the anti-stalking statute. See Bouters v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S186, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Apr. 27, 1995). Accordingly, we approve Huffine on this issue.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
KOGAN, J., specially concurring.
Subject to the reservations that I stated in Bouters v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S186, ___ So.2d ___ [1995 WL 242403] (Fla. Apr. 27, 1995) (Kogan, J., specially concurring), I concur with the majority.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
655 So. 2d 103, 1995 WL 298936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffine-v-state-fla-1995.