Matherly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matherly v. State

704 So. 2d 563, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6566, 1997 WL 329123

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 17, 1997·No. No. 96-2503·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction for the third-degree felony of misapplication of construction [564]*564funds in violation of section 713.345(l)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993), appellant seeks review, raising a number of issues. Only one merits discussion. Appellant claims that section 713.345(l)(b) is facially unconstitutional because it violates Florida’s constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt without proof of fraud. We affirm as to this issue based upon the well-reasoned opinion in Weber v. State, 649 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We affirm as to the remaining issues without discussion.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction for the third-degree felony of misapplication of construction [564]*564funds in violation of section 713.345(l)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993), appellant seeks review, raising a number of issues. Only one merits discussion. Appellant claims that section 713.345(l)(b) is facially unconstitutional because it violates Florida’s constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt without proof of fraud. We affirm as to this issue based upon the well-reasoned opinion in Weber v. State, 649 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We affirm as to the remaining issues without discussion.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Matherly v. State, 704 So. 2d 563, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6566, 1997 WL 329123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

704 So. 2d 563 (Matherly v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related