JOHN DUNN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF 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.
A defendant constitutionally cannot be imprisoned beyond the statutory maximum for failure to pay a fine if they are financially unable to do so.
Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine, with an additional year of imprisonment for fa…
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 Imprisonment For Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of aggravated assault and was sentenced to the maximum of five years imprisonment plus a three thousand dollar fine or an additional year in prison should he fail to pay the fine. Appellant: was found to be indigent and has been represented by the Public Defender throughout the lower and appellate court proceedings.
Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), requires that the part of his sentence providing that he must serve an additional year of imprisonment if he fails to pay the three thousand dollar fine be set aside because it constitutes an impermissible discrimination between defendants able and unable to pay a fine.
We agree. In Williams, supra, it was held:
“ * * * We hold only that a State may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine, (emphasis ours)
See also Schreck v. State, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 873, and Gary v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 523.
In the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971), it was held:
“We emphasize that our holding today does not suggest any constitutional infirmity in imprisonment of a defendant with the means to pay a fine who refuses or neglects to do so.”
*27Therefore, if appellant is not indigent at the expiration of his prison sentence this opinion does not prevent his incarceration for failure to pay his fine.
Accordingly, that portion of the sentence which provides that in default of payment of the three thousand dollar fine the appellant be imprisoned for an additional year is vacated.
The judgment and sentence as modified are affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holden v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…is made to appear from the record that the defendant is unable because of indigency to pay the prescribed fine. City of Orlando v. Cameron, Fla.1972, 264 So. 2d 421; Owens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 471. See also Dunn v. State, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 26. The record in the case sub judice is silent as to the issue of indigency or for that matter any assertion or contention regarding a sentence alternative to the payment of a fine. .Petitioner has not furnished this court with sufficient record of t…
-
Owens v. State, 253 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…d “ * * * The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status.” Also see Dunn v. State, 247 So. 2d 26 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1971). For the reasons hereinabove set out, that portion of the sentence which provides for 91 days in the county jail in default of the payment of $101.00 in costs is vacated. The judgment and sentence as modified herein are affirm…
-
King v. State, 445 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…alternative sentence of imprisonment for his failure to pay. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971); Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1009, 95 S.Ct. 328, 42 L.Ed.2d 283 (1974); Dunn v. State, 247 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). The assessment of costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4) would be permissible if King was first given adequate notice of such assessment and full opportunity to object. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 [*1110] (Fla.1984). Whe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971)
- Griffith v. State, 239 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Schreck v. State, 240 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)