THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN L. HARTNETT, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us upon the Court’s own Rule to Show Cause why respondent, John L. Hartnett, should not be held in contempt of this Court for failure to comply with the order of February 22, 1979, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Florida. The Florida Bar has presented strong evidence that respondent has actively engaged in the practice of law despite his two-year suspension for the reasons set forth in The Florida Bar v. Hartnett, 368 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1979). Respondent did finally appear before this Court in response to the Rule to Show Cause, which is actually the sixth such rule issued by this Court between May 16, 1979, and September 26,1980. Attempted service of the first five rules to show cause failed, and it is clear from the record that respondent has at least on some occasions avoided service of process.
The respondent’s conduct and clear disrespect for this Court cannot be tolerated. Respondent is hereby found in contempt for willfully violating this Court’s order of February 22, 1979, and the discipline earlier imposed is now modified to disbarment, effective immediately.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
BOYD, Justice,
concurs in part and dissents in part:
I concur in the finding of contempt but would extend suspension an additional two years.
SUNDBERG, Chief Justice,
dissents:
I would remand to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing on the violation of the suspension order and imposition of appropriate sanctions for contempt, if found to have been violated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…blishing non-prejudice ... [must] affirmatively appear on the record,” id.; but see Collier v. State, 353 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (placing the burden of proof on the defendant); Byrd v. State, 380 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cert. denied, 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1981), approved for other reasons in Webb v. State, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981) (same), if the defendant is shown not to have been prejudiced by the violation, no sanction may be imposed against the State. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d at 774.…
-
State v. Jones, 417 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Codie v. State, 406 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Byrd v. State, 380 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cert. denied, 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1981); State v. Gamble, 370 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). . U. S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). . State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Bennie McARTHUR v. State, 597 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…vingston, 116 Fla. 640, 156 So. 612 (1934). A plea of guilty waives all defects and non-jurisdictional irregularities in the arraignment procedure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.160(b);1 Byrd v. [*408] State, 380 So. 2d 457, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cert. denied, 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1981). Appellant in this case has not alleged that due to irregularity or defect in the arraignment process, he was unaware of the nature of the charge against him, or that such defect resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See Kincaid v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Hartnett, 368 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1979)