Garcia v. Pinellas County, 85-29
| Decision Date | 10 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-29,85-29 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 176,483 So.2d 443 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 176 Martin L. GARCIA, Charles H. Martin, and W.H. Martin, Appellants, v. PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, H. George Wilde, Marjorie H. Wilde, James F. Martin, and Patricia Martin, husband and wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John A. DeVault, III and Michael D. Whalen of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans
& Gentry, P.A., Jacksonville, and Robert E. Banker and Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villateal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellants.
John T. Allen, Jr. and Christopher P. Jayson of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., and Michael J. Keane of Parker, Parker, Bitting, Keane & Hayes, St. Petersburg, for appellee Pinellas County.
John W. Berry, Pinellas Park, for appellees H. George Wilde, Marjorie E. Wilde, James F. Martin, and Patricia Martin.
Appellants, Charles H. Martin, W.H. Martin, and their attorney, Martin L. Garcia, appeal their judgments and sentences for indirect criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a court order. They contend that there was insufficient evidence of intent to act contemptuously and that the trial judge should have disqualified himself from presiding at the contempt hearing pursuant to Rule 3.840(a)(5), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We agree with appellants' first contention and reverse their convictions. Consequently, there is no need to address their second contention.
This emotionally charged and highly publicized case arose out of an action brought by Pinellas County to enjoin the Martins from any further operations at their two borrow pits. These pits lie next to and within one-quarter and a half mile, respectively, of the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield, a major source of drinking water for Pinellas County. The county alleged, and subsequent tests confirmed, that the water supply of the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield was being seriously threatened by noxious and hazardous materials which the Martins had allowed to be dumped in their pits.
On June 7, 1984, an order was entered approving Pinellas County's plan for removal of the material in the Martins' Tyler Road pit. The order directed the county to implement the plan immediately. That afternoon county officials and members of the media arrived at the pits with trucks and a front-end loader. The Martins called their attorney, Martin Garcia, and asked his advice on how to proceed.
Garcia immediately attempted to call the judge to set up an emergency hearing, but the telephone line was busy. He assumed that it was busy with calls from the media and that he would not be able to reach the judge's office for some time. Garcia then decided he needed to determine his clients' position and consulted with his supervising attorney about the situation. The two men decided the county did not have a right to be on the property with trucks and a front-end loader because they understood the removal plan to require the implementation of certain safeguards before the removal process could commence. In light of the heated emotions of those involved with this case and a previous violent confrontation, the attorneys advised their clients to "tell them to get the hell off your property." This advice was relayed verbatim by the Martins to the county officials.
The county subsequently filed a motion to hold both the Martins and their attorney in contempt of the June 7 order. A hearing was held on the motion, and the court adjudicated all three men guilty of indirect criminal contempt for intentionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haas v. State
...or obstruct a court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity.” Garcia v. Pinellas Cty., 483 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (quoting Thomson v. State, 398 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) ). A court employs its power of criminal contempt......
-
Maas v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n
...v. State , 196 So. 3d 515, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (alteration in original) (underlined emphasis added) (quoting Garcia v. Pinellas County , 483 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ); see also Ex parte Crews , 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275, 279 (1937) ("It may be said broadly, but certainly, that......
- Riggsby v. West American Ins. Co.
-
Riley v. State
...the accused ... must be inferred from the acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances." Id. (quoting Garcia v. Pinellas County, 483 So. 2d 443, 444-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ). " Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 gives the trial court the authority to punish criminal contempt ‘......