Summary
In Perez v. State, 590 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the court held that violation of a probation order by using an alias would constitute indirect criminal contempt; in R.M.P. v. Jones, 419 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1982), violation of a dependency order was punished by contempt.
Summary of this case from H.R.S. v. StateOpinion
No. 91-1797.
January 14, 1992.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Eleanor Schockett, Judge.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Avi J. Litwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Upon the State's confession of error, which we accept as well taken, we reverse the final judgment and sentence for contempt. It is undisputed that the alleged use of an alias in violation of a condition of probation occurred outside the presence of the court and, therefore, constituted indirect contempt. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1977). The defendant was therefore entitled to the procedural rights required by law. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840.
Reversed and remanded for a hearing affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard.