State v. Shamrani, s. 53888
| Decision Date | 08 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | 54036,Nos. 53888,54037 and 54066,s. 53888 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Shallan M. SHAMRANI, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Paul CARTER, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony Edward BENNETT, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Don Charles ABEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Eula Tuttle Mason, C. Marie King and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Philip J. Padovano, Tallahassee, for Shamrani.
James W. Denhardt of Denhardt & Andringa, St. Petersburg, for Carter.
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender and Steven H. Mezer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, and Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, for Bennett and Abel.
In these consolidated appeals from orders of the County Court for Pinellas County, Florida, the facial validity of section 827.04(3), Florida Statutes (1977), is brought into question. 1 Based upon the assertion in motions to dismiss that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the trial court held it invalid. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
It is conceded by the parties that the statute in its present form is substantially the same as its predecessor 2 which together with section 828.19, Florida Statutes (1959), was upheld against an attack for vagueness in State v. Barone, 124 So.2d 490 (Fla.1960). We do not deem the change in the statutory language eliminating the work "manifestly" or adding the provisions concerning the lack of necessity for an adjudication of delinquency or dependency as being material to the constitutionality of the statute. State v. Barone was cited with approval in State v. Lindsay, 284 So.2d 377 (Fla.1973), where the 1971 version of section 828.19, Florida Statutes (1971), was assailed for vagueness and overbreadth. Finally, Barone and Lindsay were most recently cited with approval in Bell v. State, 289 So.2d 388 (Fla.1973), where section 828.21, Florida Statutes (1971), was once again found constitutional as against an assertion of vagueness.
It was stated in State v. Lindsay, 284 So.2d at 380:
The statute presently in question before this Court provides persons with notice of the prohibited acts and is not so broad that it would lead to arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. This statute does not purport to punish conduct which by modern standards would be considered innocent.
We are aware of no new wisdom acquired in the intervening five years which would make us conclude that what has heretofore been construed as not being vague or overbroad has suddenly become so. A proper respect for the principle of stare decisis dictates that we not recede from the conclusions reached in these earlier cases.
It was urged in the briefs and at oral argument that one need not knowingly engage in the prohibited conduct to fall within the reach of section 827.04(3), Florida Statutes (1977). We believe it to be implicit in the cited decisions, and we so construe the statute, that the acts proscribed by the law must be performed under such circumstances that a person of common understanding would know that they would cause or tend to cause or encourage or contribute to the delinquency or dependency of a person under the age of eighteen years. 3
Holding as we do that section 827.04(3), Florida Statutes (1977), is constitutional as construed, the orders of the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida, granting the motions to dismiss are reversed and these cases are remanded to the county court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 § 827.04(3), Fla.Stat. (1977):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fuchs, SC96766.
...of invalidity based upon vagueness. See Purvis v. State, 377 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla.1979)(§ 827.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1977)); State v. Shamrani, 370 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 1979)(§ 827.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1977)); Bell v. State, 289 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 1973)(§ 828.21, Fla.Stat.(1971)); State v. Lindsay, ......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2015–06, SC15–1872.
...a child in need of services].]Definition. § 827.01(12), Fla. Stat.“Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.State v. Shamrani, 370 So.2d 1 (Fla.1979). The option of “remain” applies only if § 827.04(1)(b), Fla. Stat., is charged.“Knowingly” means that (defendant) created a substant......
-
Senf v. State
...] any act which manifestly tends to cause any child to become a delinquent child" is unconstitutionally vague). But see State v. Shamrani, 370 So.2d 1 (Fla.1979) (upholding statute containing language similar to first and second alternatives of § 12-15-13(a) against vagueness challenge).5 T......
-
Purvis v. State
...section 827.04(3), Florida Statutes (1977), 1 is vague and overbroad. The very same issue was before the Court recently in State v. Shamrani, 370 So.2d 1 (Fla.1979). There we upheld the statute as construed. We therefore reject appellants' contention on this The second issue on this appeal ......