as-applied constitutional challenge in Florida

2018See Hughbanks v. State, 190 So. 3d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“In order to properly preserve an as-applied constitutional challenge for appeal, a defendant must timely raise the issue for the trial court’s consideration.”); Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665, 668 (Fla. 5th 6 pursuant to section 775.082(10) must be in writing and must be supported by the record; speculative findings are insufficient.

2018See Hughbanks v. State, 190 So. 3d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“In order to properly preserve an as-applied constitutional challenge for appeal, a defendant must timely raise the issue for the trial court’s consideration.”); Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665, 668 (Fla. 5th 6 pursuant to section 775.082(10) must be in writing and must be supported by the record; speculative findings are insufficient.

2018Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173, 175-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

2016We note that the First District Court of Appeal recently concluded in an as-applied constitutional challenge to sections 440.105 and 440.34’that the restrictions in those sections are unconstitutional violations of a claimant’s right to free speech, free association, petition, and right to form contracts, and held "that the criminal penalties of section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes, are unenforceable against an attorney representing a workers’ compensation client seeking to obtain benefits under chapter 440, as limited by other provisions." Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Dep’t, 190 So.3d

2015Springfield v. State, 443 So.2d 484, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming and holding that although the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, because the defendant did not raise the issue in the trial court, the appellate court could not address the argument; noting that the affirmance was without prejudice to raise the claim in a timely rule 3.850 motion); see also Enriguez v. State, 858 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“We cannot review an unpre-served argument that a statute is unconstitutional as applied.

2015Springfield v. State, 443 So.2d 484, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming and holding that although the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, because the defendant did not raise the issue in the trial court, the appellate court could not address the argument; noting that the affirmance was without prejudice to raise the claim in a timely rule 3.850 motion); see also Enriguez v. State, 858 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“We cannot review an unpre-served argument that a statute is unconstitutional as applied.

2014Relying on D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the court has explained: “[Bjecause the loitering or prowling statute does not proscribe particular conduct, it reaches the outer limits of constitutionality and must be applied with special care.” Carroll v. State, 573 So.2d 148, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

2014See Fla. Dep’t of Agrie. & Consumer Sens. v. Mendez, 98 So.3d 604, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

2014Relying on D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the court has explained: “[Bjecause the loitering or prowling statute does not proscribe particular conduct, it reaches the outer limits of constitutionality and must be applied with special care.” Carroll v. State, 573 So.2d 148, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

2013Cf. People v. Wakefield, 81 Cal.App.4th 893 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 221 (2000); People v. Hedge, 72 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 52, 61 (1999) (holding that the “unambiguous language” of the Sexually Violent Predators Act “contains no requirement [that] a defendant’s custody be ‘lawful’ at the time such petition is filed, only that the person alleged to be a [sexually violent predator] be in [actual] ‘custody under the jurisdiction of the [DOC].’ ”).

2013Cf. People v. Wakefield, 81 Cal.App.4th 893 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 221 (2000); People v. Hedge, 72 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 52, 61 (1999) (holding that the “unambiguous language” of the Sexually Violent Predators Act “contains no requirement [that] a defendant’s custody be ‘lawful’ at the time such petition is filed, only that the person alleged to be a [sexually violent predator] be in [actual] ‘custody under the jurisdiction of the [DOC].’ ”).

1999See Chrysler v. Florida Department of Highway Safety, 720 So.2d 563, 567-568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).