TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dunn v. State

John DUNN, Jr. v. STATE of Florida

Dunn v. State, 247 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 14, 1971
Docket
No. 70-274
Judges
Hobson, Liles, Mann
Citations
247 So. 2d 261971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6596

Opinion of the Court — Hobson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOBSON, Judge.

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.”

*27 Therefore, 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 21973: 11984: 119712026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holden v. City of Fort Lauderdale286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. Booth v. State246 So. 2d 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
  3. Owens v. State253 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
  4. King v. State445 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Most recent

  1. King v. State445 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Holden v. City of Fort Lauderdale286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
  3. Owens v. State253 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
  4. Booth v. State246 So. 2d 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) 833
Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) 695
Schreck v. State, 240 So. 2d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list