History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Acosta
664 So. 2d 967
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1995
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed this case after concluding that a statutory provision under which defendant was charged was facially unconstitutional. In a companion case, State v. Marcolini, 664 So.2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) we determined that the same provision was facially constitutional. We therefore reverse this case for the reasons expressed in Marcolini.

HERSEY, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Acosta
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Feb 1, 1995
Citation: 664 So. 2d 967
Docket Number: No. 94-0055
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.