Voce v. State
| Decision Date | 03 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1609,82-1609 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | Alan G.S. VOCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stuart L. Stein, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, Alan G.S. Voce, was charged in a multicount information with five counts of offering to negotiate a mortgage for compensation without a license in violation of Section 494.10(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and with five counts of mortgage fraud in violation of Section 494.093, Florida Statutes (1981). A jury found him guilty on all five of the negotiating a mortgage for compensation without a license counts and on two of the five mortgage fraud counts. This appeal is from a judgment of guilty entered pursuant to the verdict, five concurrent five year sentences, and two five year terms of probation to follow consecutively the prison sentences.
Voce attacks the sufficiency of the state's compliance with discovery and the sufficiency of the evidence as to the mortgage fraud charges. Our examination of the record reveals that there was no harmful deficiency in discovery and that there was adequate evidence to support the verdict as to the mortgage fraud charges.
Voce also attacks the circuit court's refusal to dismiss on constitutional grounds the five counts charging him with offering to negotiate a mortgage for compensation without a license in violation of Section 494.10(2), Florida Statutes (1981).
Voce's argument before the circuit court and here appears to be that the United States citizenship requirement set forth in Section 494.04(2), Florida Statutes (1981), is invalid on equal protection grounds because citizenship may not properly be made a requirement for practicing an occupation that is not related to a governmental function.
Our determination whether a constitutional decision is necessary here depends upon the relationship between the questioned statute and the facts of this case.
Five of the counts in the present information charged Voce with unlawfully offering to negotiate a mortgage loan for compensation without first obtaining a required license, contrary to Section 494.10(2), Florida Statutes. The foregoing section necessarily incorporates Section 494.04, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1) of that statute prohibits any person from acting as a mortgage broker in or from Florida without a license as provided in Chapter 494, the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Subsection (2) provides that
No mortgage broker's ... license shall be granted to any person unless he has been a bona fide resident of the state for a period of at least 6 months immediately preceding the date of application for license and is a citizen of the United States, or has presented a notarized declaration of intention to become a United States citizen.
Subsection (4) requires submission of a nonrefundable investigation fee of $50, personal information relevant to the potential licensee's character and competency, and a complete set of his fingerprints.
In order to have standing to question the constitutionality of any statute, whether it deals with a license or a criminal act, a person must demonstrate that he is injuriously affected by the particular feature of the statute he attacks. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 76a nn. 51 & 74, § 84 n. 70 (1956).
The question here is whether, by alleging only that he is being prosecuted for acting as a mortgage broker without a license and that he is an alien, Voce has demonstrated that the provision in Section 494.04(2) that makes United States citizenship a requirement for obtaining such a license has injured him.
It must be remembered that Voce's attack is only on one requirement for obtaining a license rather than an attack on the requirement that one have a license in order to engage in the occupation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peters
...of a portion of the statute which does not affect them."); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla.1979); Voce v. State, 457 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Additionally, there is no showing in the record that Shupnick--who did not file a brief or participate in oral argument--has standing to ......
-
Tribune Co. v. Huffstetler
...(Fla.1984); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla.1979); Acme Moving & Storage Co. v. Mason, 167 So.2d 555 (Fla.1964); Voce v. State, 457 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1984), review denied, 464 So.2d 556 (Fla.1985); Pasco County v. J. Dico, Inc., 343 So.2d 83 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). More specifical......
-
State v. Efthimiadis
...is void on its face or facially invalid only "if it cannot be applied constitutionally to any factual situation." Voce v. State, 457 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. den. 464 So.2d 556 (Fla.1985); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d......
-
Department of Revenue v. Florida Home Builders Ass'n, 89-2788
...87-101 was facially unconstitutional, that is, that it could not be constitutionally applied to any factual situation. Voce v. State, 457 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. den., 464 So.2d 556 (Fla.1985). Therefore, facts regarding appellees' specific contracts, while perhaps rele......