TIMOTHY ANDREW PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,
v.
CLYDE ALLEN, SUPERINTENDENT, ORLANDO MUNICIPAL PRISON FARM, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court granted a habeas corpus petition by an indigent defendant who challenged sentencing that forced him to choose jail time solely because he could not afford fines. After the Municipal Court modified the sentences by vacating the fines and reducing confinement from 240 to 90 days, the court discharged the writ as the constitutional violation was cured.
The Court held that sentencing an indigent defendant to jail solely because he cannot afford fines violates constitutional law. When the Municipal Court vacated the fines and reduced the confinement period, the constitutional violation was remedied and the habeas corpus petition was discharged.
[1] A court may not impose a jail sentence on an indigent defendant solely because the defendant is unable to pay a fine.
[2] A defendant's indigency cannot be the sole basis for requiring the defendant to serve jail time in lieu of paying a fine.
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“Being indigent, petitioner went to the Municipal Prison Farm.”
Establishes petitioner's indigency as the sole reason for incarceration rather than fine payment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Phillips, an indigent, pleaded no contest to six violations of municipal ordinances in the Municipal Court of Orlando. Each conviction carried…
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 Tate V. Short cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, an indigent, plead no contest to, and was convicted of, six violations of municipal ordinances in the Municipal Court of Orlando, Florida. Each conviction resulted in alternative sentences requiring petitioner to either pay a fine or serve time in jail.1 Being indigent, petitioner went to the Municipal Prison Farm.
He then petitioned for a writ of ha-beas corpus on the contention that he was forced to choose jail solely on account of his indigency, in violation of Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed. 2d 130 (1971) and Martin v. State, 248 So.2d 643 (Fla.1971). This Court granted the writ and dispensed with the return. We then relinquished jurisdiction temporarily to the Municipal Court of Orlando so that it could consider the nature of the fines imposed in light of Tate and Martin. In consequence, the Municipal Court modified its sentence: it vacated all money fines imposed, and reduced the total period of confinement from 240 to 90 days.
With this modification of petitioner’s sentences, any issue regarding the fines evaporates and no further question exists regarding a possible violation of Tate v. Short, supra, Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. *529235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) or Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970).
The writ heretofore issued is discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting):
I am unable to agree to this handling. It’s all too patent a discrimination. If Petitioner had been given a prison sentence only and not a fine also originally there would he no discrimination. But to redo the judgment of conviction and impose imprisonment after the fact when it is established Petitioner is an indigent who couldn’t pay the alternative fine is too neat a precedent which simply by indirection authorizes trial judges to impose alternative imprisonments after it develops indigents can’t pay their fines. The Petitioner is receiving in this case the equivalent pro tanto in terms of imprisonment what he would have received had the formality of redoing the judgment of conviction not been undertaken. I don’t believe the Tate case intended this result retroactively. I would grant the writ and discharge Petitioner.
ERVIN, Acting Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I am unable to agree to this handling. It’s all too patent a discrimination. If Petitioner had been given a prison sentence only and not a fine also originally there would he no discrimination. But to redo the judgment of conviction and impose imprisonment after the fact when it is established Petitioner is an indigent who couldn’t pay the alternative fine is too neat a precedent which simply by indirection authorizes trial judges to impose alternative imprisonments after it develops indigents can’t pay their fines. The Petitioner is receiving in this case the equivalent pro tanto in terms of imprisonment what he would have received had the formality of redoing the judgment of conviction not been undertaken. I don’t believe the Tate case intended this result retroactively. I would grant the writ and discharge Petitioner.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Layton v. Carson, 479 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973)…smissed their petitions for failure to exhaust state remedies. Layton and Walker brought this appeal, contending that resort to the state courts would have been futile in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Phillips v. Allen, Fla. 1971, 255 So. 2d 528. Petitioners for federal habeas corpus need not exhaust state remedies when it is plain that resort to the state courts would be futile. If the state’s highest court has recently rendered an adverse decision in an identical case, and if there is no…1 / 2
-
Burton v. Goodlett, 480 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1973)…ermination of the petition for writ of habeas corpus then pending in the State Circuit Court. On June 16, 1972, the State Circuit Court entered a final order dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus upon the authority of Phillips v. Allen, 255 So. 2d 528 (Fla., 1971). In Phillips the Supreme Court of Florida, Chief Justice Ervin dissenting, held that re-sentencing a defendant to mandatory jail time does not violate the principles announced in Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971)
- Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1970)
- Martin v. State, 248 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1971)