State v. Arrington

741 So. 2d 1152, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11098, 1999 WL 621566
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 20, 1999·No. Nos. 98-02646, 98-02654·Published

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

On appeal, the State challenges the county court’s dismissal of misdemeanor charges against Christy Arrington and Gidget Karlik brought pursuant to section 798.02, Florida Statutes (1997). We have jurisdiction because the county court declared the statute unconstitutional. See State v. Freund, 561 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We have already decided this issue in the State’s favor. See State v. Coyle, 718 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), review denied, 729 So.2d 390 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, we reverse. Because the court declared section 798.02 facially unconstitutional, it did not reach the merits of whether Arrington’s and Karlik’s conduct violated the statute. We remand for further proceedings on that issue.

On cross-appeal, Arrington and Karlik contend that the cases against them should be dismissed because their speedy trial rights were violated. We find no merit in their arguments and affirm.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

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

State v. Arrington, 741 So. 2d 1152, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11098, 1999 WL 621566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

741 So. 2d 1152 (State v. Arrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Coyle
718 So. 2d 218 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Freund
561 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)