Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Christy Nichols ARRINGTON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant; State of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Gidget Wilson Karlik, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-08-20
Citations: 741 So. 2d 1152
Docket Number: Nos. 98-02646, 98-02654
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Christy Nichols ARRINGTON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. State of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Gidget Wilson Karlik, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 741
Pages: 1152–1153

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Christy Nichols ARRINGTON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. State of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Gidget Wilson Karlik, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 98-02646, 98-02654.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 20, 1999.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnés, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
Luke Charles Lirot of Luke Charles Li-rot, P.A., Tampa, and D. Scott Boardman of David Scott Boardman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

Opinion:
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
On appeal, the State challenges the county court's dismissal of misdemeanor charges against Christy Arrington and Gidget Karlik brought pursuant to section 798.02, Florida Statutes (1997). We have jurisdiction because the county court declared the statute unconstitutional. See State v. Freund, 561 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We have already decided this issue in the State's favor. See State v. Coyle, 718 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), review denied, 729 So.2d 390 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, we reverse. Because the court declared section 798.02 facially unconstitutional, it did not reach the merits of whether Arrington's and Karlik's conduct violated the statute. We remand for further proceedings on that issue.
On cross-appeal, Arrington and Karlik contend that the cases against them should be dismissed because their speedy trial rights were violated. We find no merit in their arguments and affirm.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.