From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

J.M.P.U. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 5, 2003
858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

holding that a juvenile defendant could not be found in indirect criminal contempt, where defendant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt, and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties

Summary of this case from W.C. v. Smith

Opinion

Case No. 3D03-463.

Opinion filed November 5, 2003.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Steven D. Robinson, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 01-15266.

Douthit Murray, and Marc Douthit, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Frank J. Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General; and Calianne P. Lantz, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.


This is an appeal from the trial court's Order of Contempt, finding appellant J.M.P.U in indirect criminal contempt and sentencing him to ninety days in jail. We quash the trial court's Order of Contempt. The record reflects that J.M.P.U. was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt. In addition, there was no information in the Rule to Show Cause informing J.M.P.U. that he was subject to possible criminal penalties. The Rule to Show Cause thus does not meet the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840; Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1985) (indirect criminal contempt proceeding must fully comply with rule 3.840 and defendants are entitled to due process protections); Kersh v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 686 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (defendant must be afforded notice of the charge, the specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, and a hearing); Pryor v. Wille, 644 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (order for indirect criminal contempt quashed when trial court failed to comply with rule 3.840);Benarroch v. Crawford, 516 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("[T]he petitioner was denied procedural due process in this case because Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840, which governs indirect criminal contempt, was not followed in any respect by the trial court below.").

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.


Summaries of

J.M.P.U. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 5, 2003
858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

holding that a juvenile defendant could not be found in indirect criminal contempt, where defendant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt, and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties

Summary of this case from W.C. v. Smith

reversing findings of contempt where defendant was not provided with the specifics regarding the alleged contempt and there was no information in the rule to show cause informing the defendant that he was subject to criminal penalties

Summary of this case from Castro v. Castro
Case details for

J.M.P.U. v. State

Case Details

Full title:J.M.P.U., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 5, 2003

Citations

858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Hudson v. Marin

Plus, a defendant found in indirect criminal contempt of court may seek relief from the contempt order on…

W.C. v. Smith

In a criminal contempt proceeding, a defendant must be afforded the due process rights provided by statute…