State v. Person

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Person

903 So. 2d 281, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8313, 2005 WL 1307665

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-807

StatusPublished

This text of 903 So. 2d 281 (State v. Person) 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. Person, 903 So. 2d 281, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8313, 2005 WL 1307665 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

The State seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order which finds section 812.155(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), to be unconstitutional on the ground that it creates a mandatory presumption that relieves the State of its burden of proving an essential element of the offense of failing to return leased property. We hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in finding that section 812.155(4)(b) is a mandatory presumption, rather than a permissive inference. See State v. Rygwelski, 899 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA April 22, 2005) (holding that section 812.155(4)(b) creates a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, and, therefore, the defendant must make an as-applied challenge to its application under the facts of his case).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand for further proceedings.

Petition for certiorari granted.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

The State seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order which finds section 812.155(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), to be unconstitutional on the ground that it creates a mandatory presumption that relieves the State of its burden of proving an essential element of the offense of failing to return leased property. We hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in finding that section 812.155(4)(b) is a mandatory presumption, rather than a permissive inference. See State v. Rygwelski, 899 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA April 22, 2005) (holding that section 812.155(4)(b) creates a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, and, therefore, the defendant must make an as-applied challenge to its application under the facts of his case).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand for further proceedings.

Petition for certiorari granted.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 So. 2d 281, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8313, 2005 WL 1307665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-person-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack