Vernold v. State

376 So. 2d 1166
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 8, 1979
Docket54252
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 376 So. 2d 1166 (Vernold v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vernold v. State, 376 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1979).

Opinion

376 So.2d 1166 (1979)

Jeffrey M. VERNOLD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 54252.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 8, 1979.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Steven H. Mezer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Judge.

We have for review by direct appeal the judgment of the County Court for Pinellas *1167 County adjudicating Jeffrey Vernold guilty of the offense of disorderly intoxication. We have jurisdiction because, an order denying the defendant's motions to dismiss, the county court upheld the constitutionality of section 856.011, Florida Statutes (1977).

The pertinent part of section 856.011 provides:

(1) No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance.
.....

The only question properly before us is the facial constitutionality of section 856.011. We find that it is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the county court. State v. Holden, 299 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1974). See also White v. State, 330 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1976); State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1976); S.H.B. v. State, 355 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1978).

We need not consider the defendant's argument that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. Defendant's plea of nolo contendere, for the purposes of this prosecution, admitted the facts alleged in the information. Vinson v. State, 345 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1977). He may not now challenge these facts as he is attempting to do in this appeal. Martinez v. State, 368 So.2d 338 (Fla. 1978).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.

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

Related

DERRION PATTERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
FREDERICK HALL v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Bass v. State
202 So. 3d 108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Sabine v. State
198 So. 3d 1050 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Allen v. State
197 So. 3d 626 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
William R. Crews v. State of Florida
183 So. 3d 329 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Wilson v. State
152 So. 3d 2 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Dawes v. State
138 So. 3d 567 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
State v. Moore
854 So. 2d 832 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Labadie v. State
840 So. 2d 332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Stewart v. State
586 So. 2d 449 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
D.K.D. v. State
470 So. 2d 1387 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Falco v. State
407 So. 2d 203 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
State v. Perkins
384 So. 2d 782 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
376 So. 2d 1166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernold-v-state-fla-1979.