Blankenship v. State
Decision Date | 15 February 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 74176,74176 |
Citation | 556 So.2d 1108 |
Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S257 Ruth Ann BLANKENSHIP, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida 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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State
...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......