Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973)
Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973)
Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973)
21
94 S.Ct. 190
38 L.Ed.2d 179
PER CURIAM.
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. 507, 514, 68 S.Ct. 665, 669, 92 L.Ed. 744 (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, 68 S.Ct. 665, 669, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948). This has been the normal view in
this Court. Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277, 35 S.Ct. 383, 384, 59 L.Ed.
573 (1915); Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 253, 72 S.Ct. 725, 728, 96
L.Ed. 919 (1952); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 506, 86 S.Ct. 958, 962,
16 L.Ed.2d 56 (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.
So ordered.
Judgment reversed.
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.