Huffine v. State
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
655 So. 2d 103 (Huffine v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.