Marino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marino v. State

165 So. 3d 60, 2015 WL 3397126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 2015

Docket2D15-582

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 60 (Marino v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marino v. State, 165 So. 3d 60, 2015 WL 3397126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*61 PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on John Mark Marino’s petition for writ of prohibition seeking to preclude the circuit court from prosecuting Marino on two counts of unauthorized practice of law. Marino claims that because the circuit court initiated a direct criminal contempt proceeding against him based on the same facts that give rise to the unauthorized practice of law charges, his prosecution on those charges results in a doublé jeopardy violation. -

Although the circuit court did not expressly announce that it was proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 when it began the contempt proceeding, the hearing was clearly a direct (summary) contempt proceeding. Marino does not contend otherwise. Jeopardy does not attach in direct criminal contempt proceedings. See Wilson v. State, 164 So. 846, 847 (Fla.1935) (“It is too well settled to require any citation of authorities here that the punishment of conduct as a contempt of court will not bar the criminal prosecution of the accused for the substantive offense committed by such conduct.”); cf. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 697 n. 1(1993) (“We have not held, and do not mean by this example to decide, that the double jeopardy guarantee applies to [summary contempt] proceedings.”); Richardson v. Lewis, 639 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (stating that the protection against double jeopardy “applies in non-summary criminal contempt prosecutions”).

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

ALTENBERND, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

*61 PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on John Mark Marino’s petition for writ of prohibition seeking to preclude the circuit court from prosecuting Marino on two counts of unauthorized practice of law. Marino claims that because the circuit court initiated a direct criminal contempt proceeding against him based on the same facts that give rise to the unauthorized practice of law charges, his prosecution on those charges results in a doublé jeopardy violation. -

Although the circuit court did not expressly announce that it was proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 when it began the contempt proceeding, the hearing was clearly a direct (summary) contempt proceeding. Marino does not contend otherwise. Jeopardy does not attach in direct criminal contempt proceedings. See Wilson v. State, 164 So. 846, 847 (Fla.1935) (“It is too well settled to require any citation of authorities here that the punishment of conduct as a contempt of court will not bar the criminal prosecution of the accused for the substantive offense committed by such conduct.”); cf. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 697 n. 1(1993) (“We have not held, and do not mean by this example to decide, that the double jeopardy guarantee applies to [summary contempt] proceedings.”); Richardson v. Lewis, 639 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (stating that the protection against double jeopardy “applies in non-summary criminal contempt prosecutions”).

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

ALTENBERND, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 60, 2015 WL 3397126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack