State of Florida v. Deonath Sookraj

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State of Florida v. Deonath Sookraj

182 So. 3d 886, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 2016 WL 90769

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 6, 2016·No. 4D14-3018·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior order, and substitute this opinion in its place.

We reverse the county court’s order finding the mandatory $5,000 civil penalty imposed for solicitation.of prostitution under Section 796.07(6), Florida Statutes (2014), to be unconstitutionally excessive. See State v. Jones, Case No. 4D14-3019, 2015 WL 7752702 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 2, 2015). Because Sookraj had pled not guilty to the charge of solicitation of prostitution when the county court issued the order, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior order, and substitute this opinion in its place.

We reverse the county court’s order finding the mandatory $5,000 civil penalty imposed for solicitation.of prostitution under Section 796.07(6), Florida Statutes (2014), to be unconstitutionally excessive. See State v. Jones, Case No. 4D14-3019, 2015 WL 7752702 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 2, 2015). Because Sookraj had pled not guilty to the charge of solicitation of prostitution when the county court issued the order, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

State of Florida v. Deonath Sookraj, 182 So. 3d 886, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 2016 WL 90769 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

182 So. 3d 886 (State of Florida v. Deonath Sookraj) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related