Greenway v. StateGreenway v. State
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
ADKINS, Justice.
By direct appeal appellant challenges the constitutionality of
Counsel for appellant has adopted the arguments and briefs presented in Wells v. State, 402 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1981), and, in fact, submits that Wells is determinative of the issues in the instant case. In light of the decisions in both Wells and Clark v. State, 395 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1981), we agree and again uphold the constitutionality of
Appellant may challenge only those portions of
Appellant, an employee of the Florida State Prison, attempted to smuggle two marijuana cigarettes into the prison. He was convicted, pursuant to
“To perceive that smuggling drugs into a prison is prohibited activity requires only a minimum of common understanding. As applied to Wells’ conduct, section 944.47 gave fair notice that her particular behavior was illegal.” Wells v. State, 402 So. 2d at 406. “When appellant brought marijuana into the prison, his conduct was clearly illegal and proscribed in understandable terms.” Clark v. State, 395 So. 2d at 527.
Appellant engaged in essentially the same illegal acts as those held clear and understandable in both Wells and Clark.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.