RAYMOND CARL KEEGAN, JR., 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.
Defendant Keegan appealed his cocaine purchase conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the statute under Florida's one-subject rule. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and certified the constitutional question to the Florida Supreme Court, following precedent that the statute's provisions were naturally and logically connected.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Chapter 87-243 did not violate the one-subject rule because the different aspects of the act are naturally and logically connected. The court certified the constitutional question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance.
[1] A legislative act is constitutional under the one-subject rule if its various provisions are naturally and logically connected.
[2] A conviction for conduct occurring prior to the effective date of a curative legislative re-enactment is unaffected by such re-enactment.
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“DID THE ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 87-243 VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF ARTICLE III, § 6, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?”
The specific question certified to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the statute's constitutionality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeegan was convicted of purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes. The conviction related to conduct allegedly occurr…
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 Curative Legislation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals his conviction for purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, and asserts that Chapter 87-243 which amended section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes, to among other things, create the crime of purchase of a controlled substance, is unconstitutional because its enactment violated the requirement of Article III, § 6, Florida Constitution, that every law have but one subject in that Chapter 87-243 is a 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 upheld Chapter 87-243 on the ground that the different aspects of that act are naturally and logically connected.1
To expedite an early and final resolution of this frequently raised issue, we certify the following to be a question of great public importance:
DID THE ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 87-243 VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF ARTICLE III, § 6, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
DANIEL, C.J., and DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . We have considered the question of whether even if ch. 87-243 were unconstitutionally impaired when enacted, its infirmity may have been cured or eliminated by subsequent legislative action. Specifically, pursuant to, and under the authority of, the legislative direction in § 11.2421, Florida Statutes, the Joint Legislative Management Committee {see § 11.147, Fla.Stat.) § 4, ch. 87-243, Laws of Florida, was incorporated as § 893.13(l)(a) in the compilation of the public statutes of a general and permanent nature entitled "Florida Statutes, 1987” which compilation was adopted and enacted at the general session of the 1989 legislature by s. 1, ch. 89-64, Laws of Florida, effective June 16, 1989, as the official statute law of the state. § 11.2421, Fla.Stat. (1989). Therefore, the infirmity, if any, in the original enactment of § 4, ch. 87-243, Laws of Florida, may have been cured by the 1989 legislative enactment of all statutes set forth in "Florida Statutes, 1987.” See State ex rel Badgett v. Lee, 156 Fla. 291, 22 So. 2d 804 (1945). However, the conviction in this case relates to conduct allegedly occurring on October 28, 1988, approximately 8 months prior to the effective date of the curative re-enactment and therefore is unaffected by it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…at Chapter 87-243, Laws of Florida, violates Article III, Section 6, Florida Constitution, because it violates the “one subject rule.” This issue has been considered by this Court on previous occasions, the latest of which is Keegan v. [*772] State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and this appeal is affirmed for the reasons stated in that case. It is recognized that certification of the issue raised by the defendant is of great public importance, and the following question is certified: DID THE ENACTM…
-
Farley Gilbert v. State, 600 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…posed in this case, but reverse the restitution order wherein the trial court improperly delegated its authority to determine the amount of restitution to the probation officer. Bowen v. State, 590 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Waller v. State, 550 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Brown v. State, 546 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Upon remand, the defendant shall be afforded prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on the imposition of restitution…
-
Davie Richardson v. State, 555 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Keegan v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The question certified in Keegan is certified herein. AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED. COWART, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- State v. LEE, 156 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. LEE, 156 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1945)
- Blankenship v. State, 545 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Morrow v. State, 547 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Yanke v. State, 546 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Clark v. State, 551 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)