STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS SHEPPARD, RESPONDENT
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 Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, amending section 775.084, Florida Statutes, does not violate the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.
The state petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order finding a statute unconstitutional. The court had previously affirmed co…
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 Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s order finding Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, amending section 775.084, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We grant the petition.
This court has previously, in a number of cases, affirmed defendants’ convictions and sentences which utilize the amendments to the habitual offender statute here attacked on constitutional grounds. We have affirmed, citing as authority McCall v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. granted, 593 So. 2d 1052 (1992), which referenced as authority, Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1990).
We recognize in so doing that we are in conflict with Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) rev. granted, State v. Johnson, Nos. 79,150 & 79,204 (January 14, 1992). We continue to adhere to our recognized position that Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida does not violate the one subject rule of the Florida Constitution. We do so because the subject matter of Chapter 89-280 is not nearly so disparate as that contained in Chapter 87-240, approved in Burch.
Petition granted.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…a version of the habitual offender statute that was enacted in violation of the “single subject” rule. Art. III, § 6, Fla.Const. At the time this appeal initially was decided, our court had rejected the “single subject” argument. State v. Sheppard, 612 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), quashed, 616 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we affirmed on the authority of Sheppard. However, before Rankin’s appeal became final the supreme court issued its decision in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993), which hol…
-
McCRAY v. State, 609 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ourne v. State, 600 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), petition for review filed, No. 80,157 (Fla. July 10, 1992), we therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resen-tencing. However, we acknowledge conflict with decisions such as State v. Sheppard, 612 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beaubrum v. State, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) juris, accepted, 605 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1992); and McCall v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), juris, accepted, 593 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1992). We also certify the same ques…
-
Sheppard v. State, 616 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1993)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review State v. Sheppard, 612 So. 2d 584, (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 the decision of the district [*991] court in the instant case a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990)
- Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Kemp v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)