SAUN REEVES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's Hate Crimes Statute (section 775.085) is constitutional and does not violate the Free Speech or Due Process Clauses; affirming conviction for shooting into an occupied building with hate crime enhancement.
Section 775.085, Florida's Hate Crimes Statute, is constitutional and does not violate vagueness, overbreadth, or First Amendment protections.
[1] Section 775.085, Florida's Hate Crimes Statute, is not unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, or violative of the First Amendment when applied to enhance penalties for crim…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReeves shot a firearm into an occupied building on May 3, 1992, with prejudice based on the victim's sexual orientation, violating section 790.19.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Overbreadth Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
Reeves appeals his conviction of violating section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1991), for wantonly or maliciously shooting a firearm into an occupied building on May 3, 1992, evidencing prejudice based on the sexual orientation of the victim. Under section 775.085, Florida Statutes (1991) commonly known as “Florida’s Hate Crimes Statute,” the penalty for violating section 790.19 was reclassified from a second degree felony to a first degree felony. Reeves moved to dismiss this count, arguing that section 775.085 violated the Free Speech and Due Process Clauses of both state and federal constitutions. The trial court denied his motion, and Reeves subsequently pleaded nolo contendere, expressly reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Reeves on two years probation, with the additional condition that he spend thirty nights in county jail on each of the two counts, to be served concurrently.
Reeves contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because section 775.085 is unconstitutionally vague for the reasons cited in Richards v. State, 608 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Florida Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1994), expressly disapproving of Richards v. State and upholding the constitutionality of section 775.085 against challenges based on vagueness, overbreadth, and First Amendment grounds.
Accordingly, we hereby affirm Reeves’ judgment and sentence.
BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994)
- Richards v. State, 608 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)