McClish v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McClish v. State

404 So. 2d 144, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 9, 1981

DocketNo. 81-90

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 So. 2d 144 (McClish 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

McClish v. State, 404 So. 2d 144, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21067 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s contention that section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes (1979)¹ under which he was charged because a handcuff key was found on his person while he was a prisoner, is unconstitutionally vague, is without merit. The statute meets the void-for-vagueness test set forth in Sanicola v. State, 384 So.2d 152 (Fla.1980); Russ v. State, 400 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

The appellant has not shown an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying his attorney the right to question pro[145]*145spective jurors on voir dire about their personal television habits. Zamora v. State, 361 So.2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 472 (Fla.1979).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COBB and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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