ROY LEE MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant pled nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of the unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), but specifically reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the information. The motion to dismiss alleged that 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. 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 ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 87-243 VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 6, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
COWART, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pryor v. State, 558 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…-243 violates the “one subject rule” of Article III, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution. This court has held on numerous occasions that the statute does not violate the “one subject rule” of the Florida Constitution. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1990); O’Hara v. State, 555 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Keegan v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). However, we have recognized the issue to be a question of great…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Keegan v. State, 553 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)