repeated warning in Florida

2009Fla. 85-84 (1985) (municipal code enforcement board must find that same violation has been repeated by same violator before a fine for each day the repeated violation occurred past the date set for compliance may be imposed by the board); and 79-109 (1979) (governing body of charter county prohibited in absence of statutory authorization from providing by ordinance for imposition of civil penalties by agencies); Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc. , 419 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that the provisions of a county ordinance authorizing assessment of penalties by county agency

2004Fla. 85-84 (1985) (municipal code enforcement board must find that same violation has been repeated by same violator before a fine for each day the repeated violation occurred past the date set for compliance may be imposed by the board); 79-109 (1979) (governing body of charter county prohibited in absence of statutory authorization from providing by ordinance for imposition of civil penalties by agencies); Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., 419 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that the provision of a county ordinance authorizing assessment of penalties by county agency was un

2024Although Mr. Dyer did not raise his homestead status until this appeal, the record does not show that he abandoned the property or alienated it in a manner provided by law.”); Barton v. Oculina Bank, 26 So. 3d 640, 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Although the appellant did not raise the defense that the property is his homestead before the summary judgment was entered, it may be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citing Dyer, 777 So. 2d at 1059 ); see also Pelecanos v. City of Hallandale Beach, 914 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (rejecting 7 City’s argument that the trial court could imp

2018In In re Alley, this Court addressed these kinds of campaign violations and cautioned future judicial - 44 - candidates against their repetition. 699 So. 2d 1369 .

2018In In re Alley , this Court addressed these kinds of campaign violations and cautioned future judicial candidates against their repetition. 699 So.2d 1369 .

2018See In re Renke, 933 So. 2d at 493-95 (discussing this Court’s repeated warnings in past case law concerning campaign violations); see also In re Angel, 867 So. 2d 379, 383 (Fla. 2004) (“Certainly, in very egregious cases, where a judge’s misconduct included implications that he or she would make partisan decisions on the bench, the JQC has recommended a substantial fine in addition to a public reprimand and even removal.” (emphasis added) (citing In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d at 92 ; In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d at 572 )).

2018See In re Renke , 933 So.2d at 493-95 (discussing this Court's repeated warnings in past case law concerning campaign violations); *47 see also In re Angel , 867 So.2d 379 , 383 (Fla. 2004) ("Certainly, in very egregious cases, where a judge's misconduct included implications that he or she would make partisan decisions on the bench, the JQC has recommended a substantial fine in addition to a public reprimand and even removal ." (emphasis added) (citing In re Kinsey , 842 So.2d at 92 ; In re McMillan , 797 So.2d at 572 ) ).

1999Indeed, it is implicit in Faretta that the right to appointed counsel, like the right to self-representation, "is not a license to abuse the dignity of the court or to frustrate orderly proceedings, and a defendant may not manipulate the proceedings by willy-nilly leaping back and forth between the choices." See Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253 (Fla.1984).

1988Where the defendant failed to request an instruction on simple possession of cocaine as a lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine, and asked instead only for the “standard jury instructions” notwithstanding the trial court’s repeated inquiry as to whether she wanted additional instructions, there was no reversible error. 1 See State v. Daophin, 533 So.2d 761 (FIa.1988) (simple possession is not a necessarily lesser included offense of trafficking).

1986Cf., Thayer v. State, supra, at 817 ; Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, supra, at 342 ; Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944).

1986Cf., Thayer v. State, supra, at 817 ; Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, supra, at 342 ; Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944).

1986Cf., Thayer v. State, supra, at 817 ; Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, supra, at 342 ; Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944).

1984In Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the court repeated the rule and exception set forth in the foregoing opinions of this court and summarized that “Florida courts have recognized the breadth of the general rule and the narrowness of the exception.” 432 So.2d at 761 .

1984In Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the court repeated the rule and exception set forth in the foregoing opinions of this court and summarized that “Florida courts have recognized the breadth of the general rule and the narrowness of the exception.” 432 So.2d at 761 .

1976This conclusion is borne out by the City attorney's repeated warnings to the Commission that any such ordinance would be invalidated under this Court's decision in Salkolsky, supra. Thus, it is *17 clear that the City sought to accomplish by delay that which it could not effect by an immediate rezoning.