K.M., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND DARYL WOLFE, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BROWARD REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER, RESPONDENTS
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 the trial court reversibly erred in holding a juvenile in indirect criminal contempt without a valid court order and without following required procedural due process.
[1] A person cannot be held in indirect criminal contempt for violating a court order that did not exist at the time of the alleged violation.
[2] A prosecution for indirect criminal contempt requires adherence to procedural due process, including the issuance of an order to show cause, reasonable time to prepare a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile appeared for a violation of probation hearing. The trial court found the juvenile in indirect criminal contempt for breaching curfew, but d…
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 Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
K.M. petitions for habeas relief from indirect criminal contempt of a valid court order. We grant the petition.
K.M. appeared before the trial court for a first appearance on a violation of probation. During the hearing, the court stated that it would take K.M. into custody for indirect criminal contempt of a valid court order, i.e., breaching the curfew set in his probation disposition. The court did not follow the procedures for an indirect criminal contempt hearing set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150 or section 985.037, Florida Statutes. Rather, the court asked K.M.’s mother if she wanted K.M. taught a lesson, and K;M. maintained his silence on advice of counsel. The trial court reversibly erred in two respects.
First, it is clear from the hearing transcripts that a valid court order did not exist for the charge on which K.M. was held, i.e., breach of curfew, at the time K.M. was found to be in indirect contempt of court. The trial court recognized that there was no valid court order regarding the violation that was allegedly breached. The only document existing in the record was a disposition listing probation requirements. As such, K.M. could not be held in indirect criminal contempt. See M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Second, a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in rule 8.150 and section 985.037. The trial court did not initiate the proceeding by issuing an order to show cause, allowing reasonable time to prepare a defense, or setting a future hearing pursuant to rule 8.150(b). Also, the court explained neither the nature and consequences of the proceeding, nor the rights afforded K.M. pursuant to section 985.037(b). The court failed to provide K.M. with the due process set forth by rule and statute and so he is entitled to habeas relief and the findings of contempt are reversed. See G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
SHAHOOD, C.J., GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.P. v. State, 215 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…T.N. v. Portesy, 932 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Second, “a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure] rule 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court did not follow those procedures thereby resulting in a failure to provide Petitioner with due process. Accordingly, we determined and ordere…
-
F.P. v. State, 216 So. 3d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ave jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court did not follow these procedures, resulting in a failure to provide F.P. with due process. Accordingly, we determine that F.P. was enti…
-
J.H. v. State, 216 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ave jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court did not follow these procedures, resulting in a failure to provide J.H. with due process. Accordingly, we determine that J.H. was enti…
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
- G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)