THOMAS GILMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1992-04-15
No. 91-1707
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
597 So. 2d 374 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the conviction, holding that amendments to the habitual offender statute did not violate the one subject rule, relying on prior precedent.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant committed crimes between October 1, 1989, and May 2, 1991, during which time amendments to the habitual offender statute were in effect.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. As to the issue of whether section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), amendments to the habitual offender statute, violated the one subject rule of the Florida Constitution, we affirm on the authority of this court’s opinions in Jamison v. State, 583 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991), and McCall v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), review granted, 593 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1992). We note that the Third District has likewise held that the amendments did not violate the single subject rule. Beaubrum v. State, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing Jamison and McCall).

However, the First District in Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), held that section 775.084, as amended by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, violated the one subject rule from October 1, 1989, the effective date of the amendments, to May 2, 1991, the date of their re-enactment.1

Therefore, we certify that this opinion is in direct conflict with Johnson and also certify the following question, which we adopt from Johnson, to be of great public importance:

WHETHER THE CHAPTER 89-280 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 775.-084(1)(A)1, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR TO THEIR RE-ENACTMENT AS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE [THEY WERE] IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.

AFFIRMED; CERTIFIED CONFLICT; AND CERTIFIED QUESTION.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and GARRETT, JJ., concur. . Sub judice, October 1, 1990, the date appellant committed his crimes, falls within the questioned time frame.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gilmore v. State, 616 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1993)
    …OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Gilmore v. State, 597 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993).1 In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we quash, in part, the decision of the district court in the…
  • Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Beaubrum v. State, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Gilmore v. State, 597 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Kelley v. State, 569 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1990); Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1990); Correll v. Dugger, 558 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1990).…
  • Dehart v. State, 601 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …5 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), Jamison v. State, 583 [*1345] So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991), McCall v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), juris, accepted, 593 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1992), and Gilmore v. State, 597 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). WHETHER THE CHAPTER 89-280 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR TO THEIR REENACTMENT AS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE OF THE F…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw