State v. Glover

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Glover

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 14, 2001·No. No. 1D00-1818·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] with 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] with directions that the trial court reinstate Count I of the information.

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

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

Pincite

776 So. 2d 1129 (State v. Glover) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related