198 So. 3d 737
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Cotton pled nolo contendere to a violation of §796.07(2)(f) and was convicted as a second-degree misdemeanor for solicitation of prostitution.
- Trial court withheld adjudication, imposed six months probation, 25 hours public service, STD screening, and a $5000 civil penalty under §796.07(6).
- Cotton moved to declare §796.07(6) unconstitutional; the court struck the penalty as unconstitutional and certified a question of public importance.
- The statute requires a flat $5000 fine for first violations of solicitation, regardless of case facts; amendment increased the fine in 2012.
- The State appeals, arguing the penalty is not excessive or unconstitutional; the trial court held it unconstitutional on facial/applied challenges.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the statute not facially unconstitutional and the $5000 fine not excessive as applied to Cotton; remands for imposition of the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §796.07(6) facially constitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause? | Cotton: statute is unconstitutional on its face. | State: fines within legislature's range presumptively constitutional. | No; statute facially constitutional. |
| Is the $5000 fine excessive as applied to Cotton? | Cotton: fine is excessive and oppressive given circumstances. | State: court should defer to legislative determination of appropriate punishment. | Not excessive as applied to Cotton. |
| Does the statutory framework permit an applied review of the fine under proportionality standards? | Cotton: proportionality analysis should show excessiveness. | State: legislative policy and proportionality standards permit deference; no clear excessiveness. | Proportionality supports constitutionality; not plainly excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (proportionality and Excessive Fines Clause guidance)
- Amos v. Gunn, 94 So. 615 (Fla. 1922) (fine must be reasonably apportioned to redress the wrong)
- Champe v. State, 373 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1979) (proportionality standard for civil fines; not overly punitive)
- Gordon v. State, 139 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (forfeiture/excessiveness factors apply with deference to legislature)
- Smalley v. Duke Energy Fla., Inc., 154 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (facial challenge requires plainly legitimate sweep; as-applied review)
- United States v. Chaplin's, Inc., 646 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 2011) (presumption of constitutionality within statutory fines; guideline-like rationale)
- Adkins v. State, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012) (presumption of constitutionality and respect for legislative determinations)