FASTRACK APPEAL

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment holding that appellant’s vehicle was subject to forfeiture after appellant used the vehicle to travel to a drug store to pick up an illegal drug prescription. See Duckham v. State, 478 So.2d 347 (Fla. 1985); In re Forfeiture of 1986 Ford PU, 619 So.2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, the parties agree the appellant is still entitled to have the trial court consider his claim that a forfeiture would violate the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Austin v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993). We agree.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.