Malone v. Meadow

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Malone v. Meadow

411 So. 2d 263, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19397

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 4, 1982·No. Nos. AD-197, AC-323·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is no error in the judgment that Malone is guilty of indirect criminal contempt. The appropriate fine for such an offense cannot exceed $500, however, and the fine here is excessive by $250. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1979); Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973). Nor are the restrictions on Malone’s right of access to the courts through self-representation sustainable as in Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The sentence to that extent is VACATED, but otherwise the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

There is no error in the judgment that Malone is guilty of indirect criminal contempt. The appropriate fine for such an offense cannot exceed $500, however, and the fine here is excessive by $250. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1979); Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973). Nor are the restrictions on Malone’s right of access to the courts through self-representation sustainable as in Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The sentence to that extent is VACATED, but otherwise the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Malone v. Meadow, 411 So. 2d 263, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19397 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

411 So. 2d 263 (Malone v. Meadow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related