PER CURIAM. As did this court in Hobby v. State, 761 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we hold section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), to be constitutional. We therefore affirm the appellant's judgments and sentences.
eople v. Falbe, 189 I11.2d 635, 244 Ill.Dec. 901, 727 N.E.2d 200, 208 (2000) (rejecting Establishment Clause challenge to sentencing enhancement for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a "church," noting that the enhanced penalty provisions "are obviously intended to protect segments of our society which may well be considered particularly vulnerable and less able to deal with the incursions of drug trafficking and its related evils" and also that "[t]he secular purpose of the statute is to `deter narcotics activity.'") (citation omitted); Easley v. State, 755 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1999) (rejecting Establishment Clause challenge to sentencing enhancement for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a place where "a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services," and finding that provision has apparent secular purpose of "deterring drug sales near places where the public, especially families and young people, have a tendency to gather"); Hobby v. State, 761 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000) (rejecting parallel Establishment Clause challenge and noting that the challenged sentencing enhancement "does not interfere with or promote the practice of religion" and has the legitimate secular purpose noted in Easley). ΒΆ 15 As this Court noted in its March 8, 2006, Order Directing the State to File a Response Brief, Maxwell's (one-sentence) Proposition II claim has been waived.
PER CURIAM. We affirm based on our decision in Hobby v. State, 761 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Fulmer, A.C.J., and Casanueva and Stringer, JJ., Concur.
PER CURIAM. We affirm based on our decision in Hobby v. State, 761 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Fulmer, A.C.J., and Casanueva and Stringer, JJ., Concur.
The Second and Fifth Districts recently addressed this issue and found the statute constitutional on these grounds. See Hobby v. State, 2000 WL 955615 at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 12, 2000); Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 884-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We agree with their analyses and reverse the trial court's order.