State v. Cogswell
This text of 504 So. 2d 464 (State v. Cogswell) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Robert COGSWELL, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*465 Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Diane E. Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
George T. Pallas, Miami, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm and note our agreement with the trial court that section 849.25, Florida Statutes (1985) is constitutionally invalid as a due process and equal protection violation to the extent that it permits the prosecution as a felony of the same conduct treated as a misdemeanor by section 849.14, Florida Statutes (1985). The same prohibited conduct of "taking or receiving a bet" may be prosecuted under either statute, depending upon the discretion of the prosecutor. We believe this is the situation contemplated by the Florida Supreme Court in Soverino v. State, 356 So.2d 269, 272 n. 2 (Fla. 1978) when it stated:
We note that appellant might have an equal protection argument if a violation of the misdemeanor statute invariably constituted a violation of the felony statute. Palmore v. United States, 290 A.2d 573 (D.C. 1972). In the instant case, a violation of § 784.03 would not invariably constitute a violation of § 784.07.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
504 So. 2d 464, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cogswell-fladistctapp-1987.