State v. Arrington

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Arrington

741 So. 2d 1152, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11098, 1999 WL 621566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1999

DocketNos. 98-02646, 98-02654

StatusPublished

This text of 741 So. 2d 1152 (State v. Arrington) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 So. 2d 1152, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11098, 1999 WL 621566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arrington-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack