Court Opinion

ID: 9367662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 16:03:14.334618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.990281
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                   SCOTT ALEXANDER JOHNSTONE,
                             Appellant,

                                     v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                              No. 4D21-1411

                            [February 1, 2023]

  Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Okeechobee County; William Wallace, Judge; L.T. Case No.
472018MM001209A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ross Frank Berlin, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

    All motions for rehearing en banc, rehearing by the panel, written
opinion on an unwritten topic, clarification, and certification of questions
of great public importance are denied.

CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
ARTAU, J., dissents from denial of the rehearing motions with an opinion.

ARTAU, J., dissenting.

   I respectfully dissent from the majority’s denial of the defendant’s
motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. I would grant the motions
based on the intra-district and inter-district conflict in the decisional law
interpreting the stalking statute previously discussed in my dissenting
opinion in this case.

   Moreover, because I believe the decisional law interpreting the stalking
statute needs clarification in terms of how it can, or even should, be
applied in circumstances such as those that were presented in this case,
I would grant the defendant’s motion for certification to the supreme court
of the following two questions of great public importance:

      1. DOES AN ACTION SERVE “NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE”
         WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 784.048(1)(A),
         FLORIDA STATUTES, WHEN THE ACTION IS NOT
         ENTIRELY BEREFT OF A VALID PURPOSE?

      2. DOES AN ACTION CAUSE “SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL
         DISTRESS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
         784.048(1)(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, IF A REASONABLE
         OBSERVER WOULD NOT SUFFER SIGNIFICANTLY
         GREAT SUFFERING, DANGER, OR DESPERATE NEED AS
         A RESULT OF THE ACTION?

                           *         *        *

          Final Upon Release; No Motion for Rehearing Will Be
                           Entertained.

                                    2