Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1998

King v. State

King v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided January 6, 1998 · Antoon, Dauksch, Harris
706 So. 2d 880; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 406; 1998 WL 80436 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

King v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

070rehearing

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

HARRIS, Judge.

Herbert Wilson King has moved for rehearing and clarification of our previous per curiam affirmed opinion. We grant his request.

In 1995, King was charged with violations of section 794.01, Florida Statutes, which were alleged to have occurred in 1970 and 1972. Although the statute was repealed in 1974, the trial court held that King should be prosecuted under the statute as it existed on the date of the offenses. We agree and affirm.

Article X, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that “Repeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed.” In Pensacola & A.R. Co. v. State, 45 Fla. 86, 33 So. 985 (1903), the Florida Supreme Court pointed out that this constitutional provision (then Article 5, Section 32), constitutes a savings clause to allow criminal prosecutions under repealed statutes. See also Plummer v. State, 83 Fla. 689, 92 So. 222 (1922). Tooley v. State, 675 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), relied on by King, is distinguishable because the statute involved in Tooley was repealed before it became effective.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.