GARY W. TENNYSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARYLEE TENNYSON, 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.
The court held that a criminal contempt hearing cannot ordinarily be conducted in the alleged contemnor's absence, as due process protections afforded to criminal defendants apply.
Appellant was held in indirect criminal contempt for failing to make alimony payments. The trial judge conducted the show cause hearing in appellant's…
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 Purge Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the former husband, appeals an order holding him in indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with an order of the trial court directing him to make certain alimony payments to his former wife. Appellant argues the trial judge erred in conducting the show cause hearing in his absence, contrary to the requirements of Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840. We agree. Because criminal contempt proceedings are punitive in nature, alleged criminal contemnors are entitled to the same constitutional due process protections afforded other. criminal defendants. Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, the court may not, ordinarily, enter an adjudication in absentia. Bradley v. State, 420 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Though Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.180 provides for exceptions to this general rule, none are applicable here.
Here, it appears the trial judge’s purpose was not to punish appellant, but instead, to obtain appellant’s compliance with appellant’s support obligations to his former wife. The purge provision in the order allowed appellant to avoid incarceration by paying the purge amount, allowing appellant to carry the key to his cell door in his pocket. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla.1977). Accordingly, the trial judge could have proceeded in accordance with Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615 for civil contempt.
Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court to re-conduct the contempt proceedings pursuant to either Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840 or Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615.
DAVIS, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAY v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 866 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ntinuance, ultimately finding May in. criminal contempt of court and ordering a jail sentence. We reverse the judgment of criminal contempt because it was issued without May being present at the hearing. As the court stated in Tennyson v. Tennyson, 840 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003): Because criminal contempt proceedings are punitive in nature, alleged criminal contemnors are entitled to the same constitutional due process protections afforded other criminal defendants. Accordingly, the court may not, ordin…
Authorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1993)
- Alan v. Bradley, 420 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)