JOSEPH E. SIMANONOK AND PATRICIA A. SIMANONOK, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
O. E. RANDLE, JR., AS POLLUTION CONTROL DIRECTOR FOR MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Simanonoks appealed a second contempt order, arguing it violated the double jeopardy clause by punishing them twice for the same act of refusing to connect their property to the county sewer system. The court agreed, finding that both contempt orders were punitive rather than coercive and violated the constitutional prohibition against double punishment.
The second contempt order violated the constitutional protection against double punishment for the same act. Where multiple contempt orders seek to punish (rather than coerce) compliance with the same underlying court order, they constitute impermissible double punishment under the double jeopardy clause.
[1] A second contempt order that punishes a party for the same offense as a prior contempt order violates the double jeopardy clause.
[2] A contempt order that imposes a fixed jail sentence without a method for purging the contempt is considered punitive and criminal in nature.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where the purpose of a contempt order is to punish, it is generally regarded as criminal contempt.”
Establishes the legal test for distinguishing criminal from civil contempt based on the order's purpose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1977, the Pollution Control Director obtained a court order requiring the Simanonoks to connect their property to the county sewer system within th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Joseph and Patricia Simanonok, husband and wife, appeal a contempt order asserting that it is violative of the double jeopardy clause of the Florida and U. S. Constitutions. We agree.
Appellee, O. E. Randle, as Pollution Control Director for Manatee County, brought an action in 1977 to require the Simanonoks to connect their property to the county sewer system. The circuit court granted the requested relief and ordered the Simano-noks to comply within thirty days. They failed to do so and in 1979 appellee moved the court for an order of contempt. The court ordered that Joseph Simanonok be imprisoned for thirty days unless he complied with the court’s original order within thirty days. The Simanonoks again refused and the court ordered Joseph Simanonok into custody. He served the thirty days, but remained firm in his refusal to connect to the sewer system.
Appellee then filed a second motion for contempt. The Simanonoks resisted the motion on the ground of double jeopardy. A hearing was held and Joseph Simanonok was again found in contempt. The second contempt order fined the Simanonoks an amount equal to all costs and expenses of the suit and appellee’s attorney’s fees. The order further provided that Mr. Simanonok could purge himself of the contempt if, within ten days, he paid one half of the assessed costs and connected to the sewer system. This appeal followed.
The first contempt order did not provide a method whereby Simanonok could purge himself of the contempt while in jail. The thirty day sentence was strictly punishment for failure to comply with the previous court order. The second order, while stating that he could purge himself of the contempt, in reality only provided a method whereby Mr. Simanonok could purge himself of one half of the fine. Both contempt orders, therefore, sought to punish Mr. Si-manonok for his failure to comply with the court’s 1977 order. Where the purpose of a contempt order is to punish, it is generally regarded as criminal contempt. In re S.L.T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Joseph Simanonok was twice punished .for criminal contempt for failure to comply with the court’s order that he connect to the sewer system. The second contempt order violated his constitutional right not to be twice punished for the same act.
Accordingly, the second order of contempt dated December 10, 1979 is reversed. However, nothing in this opinion prevents the circuit court from properly applying coercive measures to enforce compliance with its orders.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.