WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al. v. STONE et al.
No. 73-122.
Decided November 5, 1973
Per Curiam.
In separate trials, appellees were convicted of violating Fla. Stat. §800.01 (1965), which proscribed “the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with beast . ...” Having exhausted state remedies, appellees sought federal habeas corpus, asserting, among other things, that the Florida statute was impermissibly vague. The writ was granted to both appellees. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the sole ground that § 800.01 was unconstitutionally vague and void on its face for failure to give appellees adequate notice that the conduct for which they were convicted was forbidden by law. 478 F. 2d 390 (CA5 1973).
We reverse. We perceive no violation of the “underlying principle . . . that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954). Stone was convicted for copulation per os and per anum, Huffman for copulation per anum. These very acts had long been held to constitute “the abominable and detestable crime against nature” under § 800.01 and predecessor statutes. Delaney v. State, 190 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1966), appeal dismissed, 387 U. S. 426 (1967), declared as much; and this had been the case since 1921 under Ephraim v. State, 82 Fla. 93, 89 So. 344 (1921). Delaney also held that there could be no complaint of vagueness or lack of notice that the defendant's conduct was criminal where the acts committed were among those that prior cases had held covered by the statute.
Delaney and its supporting cases require reversal of the - Court of Appeals. The judgment of federal courts as to the vagueness or not of a state statute must be made in the light of prior state constructions of the statute. For the purpose of determining whether a state statute is too vague and indefinite to constitute valid legislation “we must take the statute as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it.” Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 273 (1940). When a state statute has been construed to forbid identifiable conduct so that “interpretation by [the state court] puts these words in the statute as definitely as if it had been so amended by the legislature,” claims of impermissible vagueness must be judged in that light. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 514 (1948). This has been the normal view in this Court. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 (1915); Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 253 (1952); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 506 (1966). The Court of Appeals, therefore, was not free to ignore Delaney and related cases; and as construed by those cases, § 800.01 afforded appellees ample notice that their conduct was forbidden by law.
Appellees rely on Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1971), to avoid the efficacy of prior constructions of § 800.01. In that case, decided after appellees’ convictions had become final, the Florida Supreme Court reconsidered Delaney and held that if § 800.01 was intended to reach oral and anal sexual activity, that intention should appear on the face of the statute; otherwise it was void for vagueness and uncertainty in its language. But this holding did not remove the fact that when appellees committed the acts with which they were charged, they were on clear notice that their conduct was criminal under the statute as then construed. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled in Franklin that “this judgment holding the felony statute void is not retroactive, but prospective only,” id., at 24; and subsequently the Florida courts denied appellee Stone’s request for relief based on the Franklin case. Stone v. State, supra, n. 2. The State Supreme Court did not overrule Delaney with respect to pre-Franklin convictions. Nor was it constitutionally compelled to do so or to make retroactive its new construction of the Florida statute: “A state in defining the limits of adherence to precedent may make a choice for itself between the principle of forward operation and that of relation backward. It may say that decisions of its highest court, though later overruled, are law none the less for intermediate transactions.” Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 364 (1932). Contrary to the judgment of the Court of Appeals, § 800.01 was not void at the time appellees performed the acts for which they were convicted. The motion of appellees to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
So ordered.
Fla. Stat. §800.01 (Supp. 1973) presently provides: “Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with beast, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in [other statutory sections].” At the time of appellees’ convictions the maximum penalty was 20 years’ imprisonment.
Appellee Stone’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Stone v. State, 245 So. 2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971), and his motion for post-conviction relief was denied. Stone v. State, 264 So. 2d 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 267 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1972). It appears that appellee Huffman appealed from his conviction, but did not seek collateral relief. The District Court found exhaustion unnecessary since Huffman’s claim had already been determined adversely by the ruling in Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1971), discussed in text infra.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.