State v. Acosta (664 So. 2d 967, 1995)

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed this case after concluding that a statutory provision under which defendant was charged was facially unconstitutional. In a companion case, State v. Marcolini, 664 So.2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) we determined that the same provision was facially constitutional. We therefore reverse this case for the reasons expressed in Marcolini.

HERSEY, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.