SALOMON BENARROCH, PETITIONER,
v.
FRED CRAWFORD, AS DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND OFFENDER REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner Benarroch sought habeas corpus relief from a contempt of court order confining him to jail for 48 hours. The court granted the petition, finding that the trial court improperly imposed an indirect criminal contempt sentence without following required procedural due process under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
The court held that the contempt order was improper because: (1) it constituted an indirect criminal contempt order (based on conduct outside the court's presence and imposing a jail sentence with no purge provisions as punishment for past conduct); and (2) the trial court failed to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, thereby denying the petitioner procedural due process.
Petitioner Benarroch was confined to Dade County Jail pursuant to a trial court's contempt order imposing 48 hours of jail time as punishment for alle…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contempt Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which the petitioner Salomon Be-narroch seeks his release from the custody of the respondent Fred Crawford, director of the Dade County Department of Corrections and Offender Rehabilitation, at the Dade County Jail. The petitioner is confined to said jail pursuant to an order of contempt “for a period of 48 hours as punishment” for allegedly violating a trial court order in a domestic relations matter. We grant the subject petition, issue the writ of habeas corpus, and discharge the petitioner from the custody of the respondent based on the authority of Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977) upon a holding that (1) the order of contempt was for an indirect criminal contempt as (a) the alleged contempt was based on conduct occurring outside the presence of the trial court, and (b) the contempt order imposed a jail sentence, with no purge provisions, on the petitioner as punishment for alleged past contemptuous conduct; and (2) the 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.
It is so ordered.