Huffine v. State

Full title: TERRY MICHAEL HUFFINE, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: May 18, 1995

655 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1995)

Opinion

No. 84962.

May 18, 1995.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance Second District, No. 93-01387 (Polk County).

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, and Parker D. Thomson and Carol A. Licko, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

SHAW, Judge.

We have for review Huffine v. State, 648 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), wherein the district court certified:

Is section 784.048, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), facially unconstitutional as vague and overbroad?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently upheld the constitutionality of the anti-stalking statute. See Bouters v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S186, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Apr. 27, 1995). Accordingly, we approve Huffine on this issue.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

KOGAN, J., specially concurring.

Subject to the reservations that I stated in Bouters v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S186, ___ So.2d ___ [1995 WL 242403] (Fla. Apr. 27, 1995) (Kogan, J., specially concurring), I concur with the majority.