State v. Glover

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Glover

776 So. 2d 1129, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1315, 2001 WL 120077

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-1818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 776 So. 2d 1129 (State v. Glover) 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. Glover, 776 So. 2d 1129, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1315, 2001 WL 120077 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing Count I of the information charging Arthur Lee Glover with violation of § 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999) (prohibiting sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a physical place of worship). Mr. Glover argues that the statute is unconstitutional on due process, equal protection and vagueness grounds. We have previously rejected these arguments. See State v. McClellan, 765 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Mr. Glover also argues that the statute violates both the federal and Florida Constitutions’ respective Establishment Clauses. We also reject this challenge to the statute. See Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 883-84 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, No. SC00-1070, — So.2d - (Fla. Dec.19, 2000); Easley v. State, 755 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000). We reverse and remand [1130]*1130with directions that the trial court reinstate Count I of the information.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing Count I of the information charging Arthur Lee Glover with violation of § 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999) (prohibiting sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a physical place of worship). Mr. Glover argues that the statute is unconstitutional on due process, equal protection and vagueness grounds. We have previously rejected these arguments. See State v. McClellan, 765 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Mr. Glover also argues that the statute violates both the federal and Florida Constitutions’ respective Establishment Clauses. We also reject this challenge to the statute. See Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 883-84 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, No. SC00-1070, — So.2d - (Fla. Dec.19, 2000); Easley v. State, 755 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000). We reverse and remand [1130]*1130with directions that the trial court reinstate Count I of the information.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 So. 2d 1129, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1315, 2001 WL 120077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-glover-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack