From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 8, 1990
556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-500.

February 8, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County; Victor J. Musleh, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michele A. Lucas, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fleming Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


The defendant pled nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of the unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a)(1), 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.


Summaries of

Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 8, 1990
556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Moore v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROY LEE MOORE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Feb 8, 1990

Citations

556 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Pryor v. State

Appellant argues that chapter 87-243 violates the "one subject rule" of Article III, Section 6, of the…