Willoughby v. State

491 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1608, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8967
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 23, 1986
DocketNo. 85-2645
StatusPublished

This text of 491 So. 2d 351 (Willoughby v. State) 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
Willoughby v. State, 491 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1608, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8967 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal follows the defendant’s sentencing, the trial court having denied his motion to suppress. We find no error in the trial court’s decision, which we affirm. Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344 (Fla.1980). We conclude that the defendant is without standing to raise the constitutional issue that the state attorney’s unreasonable application of Section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1985), denied him equal protection. He admitted that he did not have the ability to provide substantial assistance. See Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1979). See also State v. Stella, 454 So.2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sandstrom v. Leader
370 So. 2d 3 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Shapiro v. State
390 So. 2d 344 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
State v. Stella
454 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1608, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willoughby-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.