State v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Lee

100 So. 3d 180, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18484, 2012 WL 5233550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-5616

StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 3d 180 (State v. Lee) 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. Lee, 100 So. 3d 180, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18484, 2012 WL 5233550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Judge.

The State appeals the dismissal of certain criminal charges filed against Willie Lee, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod. Each of these defendants had a charge filed against them for possession of controlled substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), and each of these defendants sought dismissal of those charges based on the alleged facial unconstitutionality of section 893.13.

The trial court dismissed the charges at issue based on its finding that section 893.13 was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), we reverse the order of dismissal and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the charges as to each of these defendants.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

SILBERMAN, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Judge.

The State appeals the dismissal of certain criminal charges filed against Willie Lee, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod. Each of these defendants had a charge filed against them for possession of controlled substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), and each of these defendants sought dismissal of those charges based on the alleged facial unconstitutionality of section 893.13.

The trial court dismissed the charges at issue based on its finding that section 893.13 was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), we reverse the order of dismissal and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the charges as to each of these defendants.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

SILBERMAN, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 3d 180, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18484, 2012 WL 5233550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lee-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack