State v. Treworgy
This text of 849 So. 2d 406 (State v. Treworgy) 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.
Opinion
The respondents were defendants in the Monroe county court who were charged with harvesting and possessing “short” spiny lobsters — “undersized crawfish tails” — in violation of Florida Administrative Code 68B-24.0003(1). On this application for certiorari, the state challenges the circuit court affirmance1 of a county court order which dismissed the action on the ground that the provision was unconstitutional. We quash the affirmance and remand with directions to reverse the county court order.
The provision of the code in question, which was promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, deals with the unlawful taking and possession of undersized “spiny lobster.” In reaching its decision, the county court specifically found, and the respondents do not argue otherwise, that the commission regulation (which is treated as a statute, see Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commiss’n, 838 So.2d 492 (Fla.2003)), is not itself in[408]*408valid on its face.2 It concluded, however, that an invalidity was established because of an alleged “facial conflict” between 68B-24.003(1) and 68B-24.003(5), regarding the permissible size of the crustacean’s carapace and tail respectively which could, in some hypothetical situation not involved in this case,3 result in an “unconstitutional” application of the rule. For numerous reasons and on several levels, we disagree.
We conclude:
1. First, without detailing the intricacies of the appropriate measurements of the parts of the crustacean regulated by the rule, we do not find that there is any inconsistency whatever between the two portions cited. Any alleged confusion is easily resolved simply by the taker’s measuring the carapace in the water and the tail after the lobster is taken to the boat or dock. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 68B-24.002(4). If either measurement violates the code, the lobster should not be taken or may and should be released into the water without criminal liability as provided by section 68B-24.002(4).4 See also Tingley v. Brown, 380 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1980).
2. Even if one existed, an alleged conflict between two provisions of the same statute does not give rise to an issue of constitutionality, but rather of statutory interpretation (under which, applying the rule of lenity, any ambiguity would be resolved in favor of the defendant).
3. Even if a claim of unconstitutionality could be properly entertained on a hypothetical set of facts, the statute itself may not be invalidated in actual situations (like this one) in which the constitutionality of its application is not at all involved. See Virginia v. Hicks, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2191, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003); 10 Fla. Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 91, cases collected at n. 47 (1997).
4. Finally, again assuming contrary to our previous conclusions that the issue may be involved, the respondents, [409]*409who are admittedly not affected by the alleged invalidity, have no standing to raise the claim. See 10 Fla.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 74 (1997).
For these reasons, the order of affir-mance is quashed and the cause remanded to the circuit court with directions to reverse the county court order on appeal there and to order that the case proceed to trial.
Certiorari granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
849 So. 2d 406, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9919, 2003 WL 21503857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-treworgy-fladistctapp-2003.