STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT IKE COMBS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an attempted first-degree murder indictment, holding that Florida Statutes section 777.04 does not violate the state constitution's single-subject requirement for laws because that requirement applies only to original legislative acts, not to statutes after re-enactment.
Section 777.04 does not violate the single-subject requirement because article III, section 6 applies only to 'laws' in the sense of original legislative acts, not to sections of the Florida Statutes after re-enactment. Once re-enacted as part of the Florida Statutes, the provision is no longer subject to challenge under that constitutional provision.
[1] The single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution applies to laws enacted by the legislature, not to sections of the Florida Statutes o…
[2] A statute that has been re-enacted as part of the Florida Statutes is not subject to challenge under the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Flori…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“article III, section 6, does not require sections of the Florida Statutes to conform to the single subject requirement. The requirement applies to 'laws' in the sense of acts of the legislature.”
Establishes the critical distinction that the constitutional single-subject requirement applies only to original legislative acts, not to compiled statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Ike Combs was indicted under Florida Statutes section 777.04 for attempted first-degree murder. At trial, Combs successfully argued to the circ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
The State brings this appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County dismissing an indictment on the grounds that the statute on which it was based was unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1972).
Count II of the indictment in this case charged appellee, hereinafter defendant, with attempted first degree murder, section 777.04 Florida Statutes (1977). Section 777.04 is entitled “Attempts, solicitation, conspiracy, generally.” The first three subsections define the crimes and the fourth provides the appropriate punishment.1 The defendant successfully argued to the trial court that the statute violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, “Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.”
In Santos v. State, 380 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1980), we held that “article III, section 6, does not require sections of the Florida Statutes to conform to the single subject requirement. The requirement applies to ‘laws’ in the sense of acts of the legislature.” Id. at 1285. Section 777.04 was enacted as chapter 74-383, Laws of Florida, and adopted or re-enacted in chapter 77-266, Laws of Florida. Article III, section 6 of our constitution applied only to chapter 74-383, Laws of Florida, and only so long as it remained a “law.” Once re-enacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes it was not subject to challenge under article III, section 6. There have been no subsequent pertinent amendments to justify a challenge at this point.
The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. . (1) Whoever attempts to commit an offense prohibited by law and in such attempt does any act toward the commission of such an offense, but fails in the perpetration or is intercepted or prevented in the execution of the same, commits the offense of criminal attempt and shall, when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt, be punished as provided in subsection (4).
(2) Whoever solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation and shall, when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such solicitation, be punished as provided in subsection (4).
(3) Whoever shall agree, conspire, combine, or confederate with another person or persons to commit any offense of criminal conspiracy and shall, when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished as provided in subsection (4).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)…o longer subject to challenge on the grounds that it violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. See Loxahatchee River Envtl. Control Dist. v. School Bd., 515 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1987); State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla.1980) (the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, only applies to “chapter laws,” and sections of the Florida Statutes need not conform to the requirement); see also [*3] Linda S. Jessen, Preface to Florida Statutes at vi (1991).…1 / 2
-
Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)…0), this Court held that when laws passed by the legislature are adopted and codified in this manner, the restrictions of article III, section 6, pertaining to one subject matter and notice in the title no longer apply. Accord [*670] State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1980).... ... A law passed in violation of the requirements of article III, section 6, is invalid until such time as it is reenacted for codification into the Florida Statutes. See Thompson v. Intercounty Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 So. 2d 16 (Fla.19…
-
Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…e reference to “laws” applies to acts of the legislature. Santos v. State, 380 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1980). Once an act is re-enacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, it is no longer subject to challenge under Article III, section 6. State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla.1980); Alterman Transport Lines, Inc. v. State, 405 So. 2d at 461. The title of the act at issue designates it an act relating to criminal law and procedure. The first three sections of the act amend section 775.084, Florida Statutes, pertaini…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santos v. State, 380 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1980)