Tomlinson was charged with two counts of extorting fellow real estate brokers. At trial, the judge provided the jury with the definition of legal malice and instructed the jury on the elements of extortion. Tomlinson objected to the legal malice definition and argued that the law requires the use of actual malice. The judge denied the request, and the jury found Tomlinson guilty on both extortion counts. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court ruling, and this discretionary review proceeding followed. Tomlinson asks this Court for review, arguing that the Third DCA decision conflicts with other appellate court decisions.