revocado en 414 U.S. 21 (1973); Perkins v. North Carolina, 234 F.Supp. 333 (W.D. N.C. 1964); Commonwealth v. Balhazar, 318 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. 1974); State v. Carringer, 523 P.2d 532 (Idaho 1974); Locke v. State, 501 S.W.2d 828 (Tenn. 1973
How later courts described this case
- revocado en 414 U.S. 21 (1973); Perkins v. North Carolina, 234 F.Supp. 333 (W.D. N.C. 1964); Commonwealth v. Balhazar, 318 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. 1974); State v. Carringer, 523 P.2d 532 (Idaho 1974); Locke v. State, 501 S.W.2d 828 (Tenn. 1973
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RONEY, Circuit Judge,
(specially concurring) :
I concur in the disposition of this case on our Summary Calendar only because the Supreme Court of Florida has held that the statute under which the defendants were convicted is constitutionally void on Us face.
The statute, § 800.01, is void on its face as unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants.
Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21, 24 (Fla.1971).
*398 The State has not argued in its brief that the statute can withstand the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. Nor, as pointed out by Judge Goldberg, has the State cited any authority which could support a denial of habeas corpus relief by the District Court to defendants who have been convicted under a statute which has been determined to be too vague and uncertain on its face to charge any crime.