Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

633 So. 2d 106

Billups v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-03-11

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2011

6 state decisions

Relies on 619 So. 2d 244 - Holliday v. City of Tampa

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-03-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

¶1Appellant, James Walter Billups, challenges his judgment and sentence for loitering in violation of section 24-43, City of Tampa Code (1989). Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, attacking the ordinance on constitutional vagueness grounds. When the trial court denied his motion, appellant pled no contest to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional ruling by the trial court.

¶2The Florida Supreme Court has now decided this issue in Holliday v. City of Tampa, 619 So.2d 244 (Fla.1993), determining that section 24-43, City of Tampa Code (1989) is facially unconstitutional. Based on the authority and precedent of Holliday, we therefore reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence for violation of section 24-43, City of Tampa Code. The other arguments raised by appellant are not properly addressed in this appeal.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
/633/so2d/106 · .json · Public domain