J.M.P.U., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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.
Florida appellate court quashed a contempt conviction because the trial court failed to comply with Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by not providing specific notice of the alleged contemptuous conduct or warning of criminal penalties.
An indirect criminal contempt order must be quashed when the Rule to Show Cause fails to specify the acts constituting contempt or inform the defendant of possible criminal penalties, violating Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
[1] An indirect criminal contempt proceeding must fully comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, which requires specific notice of the alleged contemptuous condu…
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 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.”
Benarroch v. Crawford, establishing that complete non-compliance with Rule 3.840 constitutes due process violation.
J.M.P.U. was found in indirect criminal contempt and sentenced to ninety days in jail based on a Rule to Show Cause that lacked specificity regarding …
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yilka de Castro v. Scorpio de Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ued by the trial judge, no affidavit or sworn testimony accompanied the motion or notice of hearing, and neither the motion nor the notice of hearing put the mother on notice that she was potentially facing criminal penalties. See J.M.P.U. v. State, 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(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 penal…
-
W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…s provided by statute and rule. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985) (stating that indirect criminal contempt proceeding must fully comply with the procedural rule and defendants are entitled to due process protections); J.M.P.U. v. State, 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 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…
-
Yacenda Hudson and Amina McNeil v. Marin, 259 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…uct the hearing on behalf of the court; and (iv) find the defendant in indirect criminal contempt. Plus, a defendant found in indirect criminal contempt of court may seek relief from the contempt order on direct appeal. See, e.g., J.M.P.U. v. State, 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ; Kersh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). So, at least at first blush, prohibition would seem unavailable to the petitioners in this case. Florida's appellate courts, however, have found that, in v…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Kersh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Objective Mktg. Action, Ltd. v. Hills, 516 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez v. Se. Bank, N.A., 516 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Pryor v. Wille, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jimerson v. State, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)