Fuller v. State
The Sixth DCA affirmed a conviction for sexual cyberharassment, rejecting the defendant's argument that venue was improper in Osceola County because it also could have been proper in Orange County. The court held that section 910.15(1) and (2) work in tandem: because the crime was facilitated through an internet communication, section 910.15(2) expands the 'dissemination was made' venue provision of subsection (1) to make venue proper in every county in the state, not just the county where the communication was received.
Key facts
- Fuller was charged with sexual cyberharassment in Osceola County based on an email communication sent through Gmail addresses.
- Fuller argued that venue was improper in Osceola County because the crime could have been prosecuted in Orange County where the communication was received.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is apparently the first Florida appellate decision to squarely address how section 910.15(1) and (2) interact for internet-facilitated crimes, clarifying that the two provisions work together rather than the… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.