GLENN ROUNDTREE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant's summary conviction for direct criminal contempt and 179-day jail sentence was affirmed because the misconduct occurred in open court before the judge and satisfied the narrow exception to due process counsel requirements.
A trial court may summarily punish direct criminal contempt without providing counsel when the misconduct occurs in open court, is directly observed by the judge, and immediate punishment is necessary to preserve court authority.
[1] Direct criminal contempt committed in open court before the judge, where all essential elements are directly observed, may be summarily punished without counsel to preser…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The narrow exception to these due process requirements includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the presence of the judge, which disturbs the court's business, where all of the essential elements of the misconduct are under the eye of the court, are actually observed by the court, and where immediate punishment is essential to prevent 'demoralization of the court's authority * * * before the public.'”
Explaining the limited circumstances under which summary contempt punishment without counsel is constitutionally permissible.
Appellant was summarily found guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced to 179 days in county jail. The trial court denied counsel's request to…
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 Summary Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was summarily found guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced to one hundred and seventy nine days in the county jail.
We find no error in the trial court’s denial of counsel’s request to speak for the defendant, particularly where appellant himself declined the opportunity to offer evidence on the merits of the criminal contempt or in mitigation thereof. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Cook v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). While due process requirements may mandate a right to counsel, that right is not absolute.
The narrow exception to these due process requirements includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the presence of the judge, which disturbs the court’s business, where all of the essential elements of the misconduct are under the eye of the court, are actually observed by the court, and where immediate punishment is essential to prevent ‘demoralization of the court’s authority * * * before the public.’
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 275, 68 S.Ct. at 509, (citing Cook). See also Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (no right to counsel in direct contempt proceedings).
The transcript clearly demonstrates that “all of the essential elements of the misconduct [took place] under the eye of the court, [and were] actually observed by the court.” Accordingly the trial court had the power to summarily punish appellant’s misconduct “to prevent demoralization of the court’s authority before the public.”
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…In re Oliver without citing Argersinger or discussing its implications. See, e.g., Stahl, 906 So. 2d 354, 354; Bryant v. State, 851 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706, 711-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Roundtree v. State, 651 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). However, while this district in Stahl and the Fourth District in Forbes each applied In re Oliver despite Argersinger, both courts have questioned that result in unrelated opinions. See Kelley v. Rice, 800 So. 2d 247, 254 n…
-
Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…gned by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the trial court did not err in failing to appoint counsel for The direct criminal contempt proceedings. See Roundtree v. State, 651 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), and finding no error in the trial court’s refusal to allow defense counsel to speak for defendant during criminal contempt proceedings); Saunders v. State, 319…
Authorities Cited
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948)
- Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1925)
- Penson v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)