DUKE PORTER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Duke Porter was convicted of illegal possession of alcohol under a 1923 Florida statute that mandated imprisonment as punishment. The Florida Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional because its title failed to adequately express the subject matter of the act, violating the state constitutional requirement that each law embrace but one subject briefly expressed in its title.
Chapter 8266, Acts of 1923, is unconstitutional and inoperative because its title does not briefly or otherwise express the subject of the Act, violating Section 16, Article III of the Florida Constitution. The judgment imposing fine and imprisonment is therefore quashed.
“each law enacted in the legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title”
States the constitutional requirement that Porter invoked to challenge the statute's validity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuke Porter was charged with unlawful possession of rum or moonshine whiskey in violation of Florida prohibition law. He was convicted in County Judge…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Upon a charge that he did "unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control certain alcoholic and intoxicating liquors and beverages not permitted by law, to-wit: rum or moonshine whiskey,” one Duke Porter was convicted in the County Judge’s Court and sentenced to a fine and imprisonment. The judgment of conviction states that "said sentence of imprisonment being imposed because by Acts of 1923, imprisonment is required.” The sentence was affirmed by the Circuit Court.
On certiorari issued by this court, it is contended that Chapter 8266, Acts of 1923, under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional in that it violates Section 16, Article III, which provides that "each law enacted in the legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter prop erly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. ’ ’
The title of Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, is as follows:
"AN ACT to Amend Section 5486 of the Revised General Statutes of the State of Florida, Relating to and to Provide Penalties for a Violation of such Section as Amended.”
The statute purports to change the sentence from fine or imprisonment or fine and imprisonment to fine and imprisonment, without any alternative.
Section 5486, Revised General Statutes of 1920, which Chapter 9266 purports to amend relates to the penalty for first and second offenses for violating the provisions of the prohibition law. The title to Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, does not briefly or otherwise express the subject of the Act, therefore, the Act is inoperative. Webster v. Powell, 36 Fla. 703, 18 South. Rep. 441; The Borrowdale, 39 Fed. Rep. 376; Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 131, 13 Pac. Rep. 453; Wall v. Garrison, 11 Colo. 515, 19 Pac. Rep. 469; People v. Hills, 35 N. Y. 449; 36 Cyc. 1030.
The title to Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, is quite different from that of Chapter 5692 adjudicated in Stokes v. Galloway, 61 Fla. 437, 54 South. Rep. 799.
The judgment imposing a fine and imprisonment is quashed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur;
Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dresner v. City OF Tallahassee, 164 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1964)…uincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann.Cas.1916D, 208. This was also [*212] formerly the rule if the conviction in the lower trial court was the product of an unconstitutional statute. Coe-Mortimer Co. v. State, 81 Fla. 701, 88 So. 475; Porter v. State, 91 Fla. 667, 108 So. 814. Similarly it has been held that the imposition of a penalty for activities not within the prohibition of a penal statute may be reached on ultimate review by certiorari. Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84, 66 So. 421. More directly in res…
-
Ex parte Reed, 101 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1931)…ons of this section shall not prevent the forfeiture, destruction and sale as is herein provided in other sections of this Article.” Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, which attempted to amend this Section was declared unconstitutional in Porter v. State, 91 Fla. 667, 108 So. 814. The indictment fails to show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to try the defendant and enter judgment against him for a felony, because the previous conviction of liquor law violation, which is necessary to raise the offense th…
-
State v. Benigo Fernandez, 156 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…like offense.’ “It is to be observed that in Benson v. State (1924) 88 Fla. 103, 101 So. 231, the court dealt with the construction of § 9266, Laws of Fla.1923, which section was declared invalid because of defective title in Porter v. State (1926) 91 Fla. 667, 108 So. 814. That section provided that the accused should not be deemed a second offender unless he had theretofore been convicted of one or more of four possible transgressions of the act, viz., manufacturing, selling, possessing for sale, or tra…
Authorities Cited
- Webster v. Powell, 36 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1895)
- Stokes v. Galloway, 61 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1911)