State v. Maske

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Maske

446 So. 2d 1091, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11571

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1984

DocketNo. 82-2276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 1091 (State v. Maske) 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. Maske, 446 So. 2d 1091, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11571 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

The state appeals from the granting of the appellees’ motions to dismiss. We reverse and remand with instructions.

In April 1982, the appellees were charged by information with agreeing, consenting or offering to unlawfully sell a controlled substance (methaqualone), and then selling another substance in lieu of the controlled substance in violation of section 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Subsequently, the appellees filed motions to dismiss the information asserting that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and in application. The trial judge granted the motions to dismiss adopting in part the rationale and holding of the trial court in State v. Thomas, (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. 1982).

At the time he ruled, the trial judge did not have the benefit of the teachings contained in the appellate decision of State v. Thomas, 428 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA), petition for review denied, 436 So.2d 101 (Fla.1983), nor the decision in M.P. v. State, 430 So.2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also State v. Growden, 437 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and State v. King, 435 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). These cases uphold the constitutionality of section 817.-563, Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore, the motions to dismiss were improperly granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to reinstate the informations herein and for further proceedings.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

The state appeals from the granting of the appellees’ motions to dismiss. We reverse and remand with instructions.

In April 1982, the appellees were charged by information with agreeing, consenting or offering to unlawfully sell a controlled substance (methaqualone), and then selling another substance in lieu of the controlled substance in violation of section 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Subsequently, the appellees filed motions to dismiss the information asserting that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and in application. The trial judge granted the motions to dismiss adopting in part the rationale and holding of the trial court in State v. Thomas, (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. 1982).

At the time he ruled, the trial judge did not have the benefit of the teachings contained in the appellate decision of State v. Thomas, 428 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA), petition for review denied, 436 So.2d 101 (Fla.1983), nor the decision in M.P. v. State, 430 So.2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also State v. Growden, 437 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and State v. King, 435 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). These cases uphold the constitutionality of section 817.-563, Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore, the motions to dismiss were improperly granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to reinstate the informations herein and for further proceedings.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 1091, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maske-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack