Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

554 So. 2d 621

Freeman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 26, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-12-26

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1998

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“we serve[d] notice to the bench and bar that in the future a denial of a petition for a writ of prohibition will, in fact, be a ruling on the merits, unless otherwise indicated.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 586 So. 2d 1282 - Nordqvist v. Nordqvist

Relies on 504 So. 2d 763 - Manatee County v. Marks · 496 So. 2d 977 - Obanion v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-12-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Defendant Lawrence Freeman pled nolo contendere to two counts of violating subsection 895.03(1), Florida Statutes (1987), expressly reserving the right to appeal the issue of the facial constitutionality of the statute. Defendant urges that the statute is void for vagueness.

¶2Defendant previously raised the identical issue by petition for writ of prohibition, which was denied. As announced in Obanion v. State, 496 So.2d 977 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 768 (Fla.1987), “denial of a petition for a writ of prohibition will, in fact, be a ruling on the merits, unless otherwise indicated.” Id. at 980.* As a previous panel of the court has sustained the constitutionality of the statute, with which disposition we agree, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

¶3Affirmed.

¶4 By motion for rehearing of the denial of prohibition defendant requested clarification of the ha-sis of the ruling, which was denied.

/554/so2d/621 · .json · Public domain