Opinion ID: 1597538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oneness of Purpose

Text: This Court utilizes a oneness of purpose standard in applying the single-subject rule. [8] A proposed amendment meets this test when it may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme. Unity of object and plan is the universal test.... City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 154 Fla. 881, 19 So.2d 318, 320 (1944). The present proposed amendment is similar in key respects to the amendment in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Stop Early Release of Prisoners, 661 So.2d 1204 (Fla.1995). There, the title and summary read as follows: TITLE: STOP TURNING OUT PRISONERS: LIMIT EARLY RELEASE. SUMMARY: A state constitutional amendment which, except for pardon or clemency, requires that state prisoners sentenced to a term of years shall serve at least eighty-five percent of their terms of imprisonment. Parole, conditional release, or any mechanism of sentence reduction may reduce the term of years sentence by no more than fifteen percent. State prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment shall be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives, unless granted pardon or clemency. Stop Early Release of Prisoners, 661 So.2d at 1205. The full text of the amendment provided as follows: All state prisoners lawfully sentenced to a term of years shall serve at least eighty-five percent of their term of imprisonment, unless granted pardon or clemency. Parole, conditional release, or any mechanism of sentence reduction may reduce the term of years sentence by no more than fifteen percent. State prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment shall be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives, unless granted pardon or clemency. Id. This Court approved the amendment, finding no single subject violation. The Court reasoned as follows: Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides that any constitutional amendment or revision by initiative shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith. To comply with this provision the proposed amendment must manifest a logical and natural oneness of purpose. Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla.1984). We find that the proposed amendment meets this criterion, as it deals with the sole subject of limiting sentencing reduction methods. The final provision pertaining to life sentences merely provides detail as to how the proposed amendment will be implemented in cases where life sentences are imposed. Stop Early Release of Prisoners, 661 So.2d at 1206. In the present case, the proposed amendment evinces a similar oneness of purpose, for the amendment has but one function: to establish a treatment and rehabilitation option for first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders. The amendment sets forth a simple, straightforward constitutional framework for accomplishing this goal; it is a no-frills amendment. Just as the Court in Stop Early Release of Prisoners held that the oneness of purpose criterion was dispositive in that case, so too do we hold that the same criterion is dispositive in the present case.