Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

556 So. 2d 771, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 689, 1990 WL 9289

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 1990

DocketNo. 89-500

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 556 So. 2d 771 (Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. State, 556 So. 2d 771, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 689, 1990 WL 9289 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant pled nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of the unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), 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. [772]*772State, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant pled nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of the unlawful purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), 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. [772]*772State, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 So. 2d 771, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 689, 1990 WL 9289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack