Blankenship v. State

Decision Date15 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 74176,74176
Citation556 So.2d 1108
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly S257 Ruth Ann BLANKENSHIP, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance, Second District--Case Nos. 88-01349, 88-01353, 88-01354, 88-01356, 88-01357, 88-01359, 88-01419, 88-01421, 88-01430, 88-01431, 88-01432, 88-01433, 88-01553, 88-01554, 88-01555, 88-01557, 88-01559, 88-01560, 88-01602, 88-01694, 88-01715, 88-01716, 88-01799 and 88-01801.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Lawrence D. Shearer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for petitioners.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), to answer the following certified question:

DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered this question in the negative in Burch v. State, 558 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1990). We approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 15, 1991
    ...Lines, Inc. v. State, 405 So.2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Blankenship v. State, 545 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, 556 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1990). The test for determining duplicity of subject "is whether or not the provisions of the bill are designed to accomplish separate and disassoci......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT