LAURIE ANN LEONARDI, 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 court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally amended, but the probation order was improper as a general sentence.
Appellant was convicted under a statute she argued was unconstitutionally amended. The probation order imposed a general sentence for multiple offense…
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 Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Having considered appellant’s motion for rehearing, we vacate our earlier decision and substitute this opinion.
The appellant, Leonardi, first contends that the statute under which she was convicted — section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) — was unconstitutionally amended by Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida. She argues that the 1987 amendment violates the single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6, Florida Constitution. We disagree for the reasons set forth in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla.1987) and State v. Lee, 356 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1978), but join the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal1 in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
We agree with the appellant’s second contention that the trial court’s probation order runs afoul of Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977), holding that gen eral sentences may not be imposed. The order should be corrected to reflect that the probation imposed applies to only one offense, or apportion the total probation among the two offenses concerned. The state agrees that Dorfman requires resentencing.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990)…district courts of appeal have addressed the validity 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 fav…
-
Leonardi v. State, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1990)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), did not violate the single subject rule of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. In that case, the district court cert…
-
Keegan v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…massive enactment of some 76 sections dealing with many different matters. We affirm on the authority of Morrow v. State, 547 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (en banc), jurisdiction accepted, Case No. 74,582 (Fla. Aug. 22, 1989); Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Clark v. State, 551 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Bennett v. State, 546 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) all of which up…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Dep't OF Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987)
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- State v. LEE, 356 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1978)
- Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)