JOHN SAVARY DAME, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction for conspiracy to sell LSD and delivery of LSD to a minor, rejecting the defendant's constitutional challenge that the statute violated Florida's one-subject rule, while certifying the constitutional question to the Florida Supreme Court.
Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, does not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution, and the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss.
[1] A statute enacting drug delivery and conspiracy provisions does not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution merely because it addresses multiple related…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Savary Dame was charged with conspiracy to sell or deliver LSD and delivery of LSD to a person under 18 years old in violation of Florida statute…
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 Statutory Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
John Savary Dame was charged with and convicted of conspiracy to sell or deliver LSD in violation of sections 777.04(3) and 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and delivery of LSD to a person under the age of 18 years or hire of a person under the age of 18 years as an agent or employee in the sale or delivery of LSD in violation of section"893.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The sole issue Dame raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges based on section 893.13 on the ground that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, the enacting legislation for section 893.13, violates the one-subject rule contained in Article III, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution. Both the second and fourth district courts have considered this question and have determined that Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, did not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution and thus section 893.13, Florida Statutes, is constitutional. Blankenship, et al. v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (2d DCA 1989); State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (4th DCA, 1989). We affirm the trial court’s denial of Dame’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute is constitutional, following Blankenship and Burch, and certify the following question to the supreme court:
DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE • ONE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990)…ity of chapter 87-243, and each of them has held that the act does not violate the single-subject provision of our constitution. Bentley v. State, 555 So. 2d 405 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Leonardo v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla.5th DCA 1989); Dame v. State, 547 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1st DCA 1989); Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). In State v. Kinner, 398 So. 2d 1360, 1363 (Fla.1981), this Court stated: [W]e are aware of the strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of statutes. It is well…
-
Raulerson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ect rule of the Florida Constitution, and thus Section 893.13 is constitutional. State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). This court followed Burch and Blankenship in Dame v. State, 547 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), affirming the denial of Dame’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute is constitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss herein. We certify the following question to the suprem…
-
Dame v. State, 556 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1990)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Dame v. State, 547 So. 2d 1038, 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to answer the following certified question: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), VIOLATE THE ONE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)