Case Name: Edward Eugene CARTER, Petitioner, v. Tullis EASTERLING, as Sheriff of Bay County, Florida, and William G. Guy, as Sheriff of Calhoun County, Florida, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-08-14
Citations: 362 So. 2d 356
Docket Number: No. JJ-310
Parties: Edward Eugene CARTER, Petitioner, v. Tullis EASTERLING, as Sheriff of Bay County, Florida, and William G. Guy, as Sheriff of Calhoun County, Florida, Respondents.
Judges: MeCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Edward Eugene CARTER, Petitioner, v. Tullis EASTERLING, as Sheriff of Bay County, Florida, and William G. Guy, as Sheriff of Calhoun County, Florida, Respondents.
No. JJ-310.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 14, 1978.
Frank A. Baker and Bill A. Corbin, Blountstown, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus seeking release from incarceration ordered by a circuit judge for contempt. The case arises out of a domestic relations matter. Petitioner's former wife, Frances N. Carter, was allowed to file a brief and appear amicus curiae.
We have considered the record and heard oral argument of counsel. The facts are very similar to those recited by the Supreme Court of Florida in Pugliese v. Pug- liese, 347 So.2d 422, (Fla.1977). Here, as there, it is difficult if not impossible to determine whether petitioner was incarcerated for civil contempt or criminal contempt. If a civil proceeding, the order of incarceration is insufficient in that it made no provision for petitioner to purge himself of contempt. If the proceeding was in the nature of criminal contempt then the record reveals a failure to comply with the applicable rules and principles announced in Pugliese v. Pugliese, supra.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is granted. Petitioner shall be discharged under the order of incarceration hereinabove mentioned.
The action here taken is, however, without prejudice to further proceedings under the guidelines of Pugliese v. Pugliese, supra, and authorities therein cited.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MeCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.