Dickerson v. State, No. 5D00-1561.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | ORFINGER, R.B., J. |
| Citation | 783 So.2d 1144 |
| Parties | Mathew DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 5D00-1561. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 2001 |
783 So.2d 1144
Mathew DICKERSON, Appellant,v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
No. 5D00-1561.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 30, 2001.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 2001.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alfred Washington, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ORFINGER, R.B., J.
Mathew Dickerson (Dickerson), challenges the constitutionality of sections 893.13(1)(e) and 812.171, Florida Statutes (1999), which enhance the penalties imposed on defendants convicted of selling, manufacturing, delivering or possessing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a convenience business. Dickerson claims that the statutes are void for vagueness. We find the statutes to be constitutional and affirm Dickerson's judgment and sentence.
The relevant portion of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), provides:
Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, or within 1,000 feet of a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services or within 1,000 feet of a convenience business as defined in s. 812.171.
As used in this act, the term "convenience business" means any place of business that is primarily engaged in the retail sale of groceries, or both groceries and gasoline, and that is open for business at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. The term "convenience business" does not include:
(1) A business that is solely or primarily a restaurant.
(2) A business that always has at least five employees on the premises after 11 p.m. and before 5 a.m.
(3) A business that has at least 10,000 square feet of retail floor space.
The term "convenience business" does not include any business in which the owner or members of his or her family work between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
The circuit court denied Dickerson's motion to dismiss, concluding that the statute places a reasonable person on notice of what constitutes "convenience business." Dickerson then entered a negotiated plea of no contest and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss.
In challenging the constitutionality of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), Dickerson argues that the trial court should have found the statute to be unconstitutional because the language of the statute is vague in its creation of a 1000-foot drug-free zone around convenience businesses. Specifically, Dickerson contends that the term "convenience business," as defined in section 812.171, fails to adequately advise the public of which businesses fall within the statutory definition of a "convenience business." Rather, Dickerson argues that under the statute only the business owner knows whether or not it is a "convenience business." Finally, Dickerson argues that the State failed to plead and prove that the "Speedway Store" in the instant case is a "convenience business" under section 812.171.
A trial court decision regarding the constitutionality of a statute is reviewed de novo because it presents a pure question of law. Dep't of Ins. v. Keys Title & Abstract Co., 741 So.2d 599, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So.2d 158 (Fla.2000). There is a strong presumption that statutes are constitutionally valid. In re Estate of Caldwell, 247 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1971); Libertarian Party of Florida v. Smith, 660 So.2d 807, 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, we are obligated to interpret statutes in such a manner as to uphold their constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so. Capital City Country Club v. Tucker, 613 So.2d 448, 452 (Fla.1993).
When interpreting a statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Hunter, No. 5D08-162.
..."`who challenges the constitutional validity of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing its invalidity.'" Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Wright v. State, 739 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA Due Process The basic due process guarantee of the Flori......
-
Brazill v. State, No. 4D01-3244.
...of Miami v. McGrath, 824 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla.2002); Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). There is a strong presumption that a statute is constitutionally valid. See McGrath, 824 So.2d at 146; In re Es......
-
James v. Sec'y, DOC, Case No. 3:10-cv-763-J-37TEM
...as such. See Royal v. State, 784 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 819 So.2d 138 (2002); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 819 So.2d 134 (Fla....
-
Adhin v. Loans, JULY TERM 2010
..."'who challenges the constitutional validity of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing its invalidity.'" Dickerson v. State, 783 So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Wright v. State, 739 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Appellants argue that section 48.23(1)(b), vio......
-
Ellis v. Hunter, 5D08-162.
..."`who challenges the constitutional validity of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing its invalidity.'" Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Wright v. State, 739 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA Due Process The basic due process guarantee of the Flori......
-
Brazill v. State, 4D01-3244.
...of Miami v. McGrath, 824 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla.2002); Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). There is a strong presumption that a statute is constitutionally valid. See McGrath, 824 So.2d at 146; In re Es......
-
James v. Sec'y, DOC, Case No. 3:10-cv-763-J-37TEM
...as such. See Royal v. State, 784 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 819 So.2d 138 (2002); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 819 So.2d 134 (Fla....
-
Adhin v. Loans, JULY TERM 2010
..."'who challenges the constitutional validity of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing its invalidity.'" Dickerson v. State, 783 So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Wright v. State, 739 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Appellants argue that section 48.23(1)(b), vio......