CHAKARIS TWINE, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

ROTHENBERG, J.

Chakaris Twine appeals a judgment of contempt and the sentence imposed by the trial court after a full hearing. Because the defendant’s actions were contemptuous and the. trial court complied with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment adjudicating Twine in contempt of court. See Thomas v. State, 752 So.2d 679, 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that a trial court’s order finding a defendant in direct criminal contempt is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). We only write to express this Court’s concern regarding the sentence imposed, which, although lawful, appears to be excessive based oh the facts of this case.

The record reflects ■ the following. Twine was charged with one count of possession with intent to sell cocaine. When the trial court denied Twine’s motion to release Twine on his own recognizance or reduce his bond at a status conference, Twine responded by stating, “This is a bunch of bullshit.” When the trial court confronted Twine with his use of profanity in court, Twine admitted that he had uttered the words heard by the trial court and immediately apologized. When the trial court asked Twine if there was any reason he could offer as to why he should not be held in contempt of court, Twine responded, “No, sir.” Because Twine was represented' by counsel, the trial court also afforded Twine’s counsel an opportunity to present argument as to why the court should not hold Twine in contempt of court. Counsel readily admitted that Twine had used the profanity heard by the trial court, but argued that when Twine’s bond was not reduced, he became emotional and reacted in the heat of the moment, but immediately regretted his outburst and apologized to the court.

After noting it had always treated Twine with respect and courtesy, the trial court found Twine in direct contempt of court. Before sentencing Twine, the trial court asked Twine if he had anything to offer as an excuse or in mitigation of his conduct. Twine explained that he was upset when the trial court refused to release him on his own recognizance because he believed that he had been unfairly arrested by the police and he was needed at home. He explained that his seventy-six year old mother has breast cancer, recently had surgery, and was receiving cherpotherapy treatment. The defendant further explained that he was his mother’s sole caretaker and that she could not care for herself. Despite Twine’s apology, remorse, and explanation, the trial court sentenced him to 180 days in the county' jail, the maximum sentence allowable for direct *46criminal contempt of court where a defendant has not been given a jury trial.1

We acknowledge that the use of profanity in court may constitute direct criminal contempt of court, see, e.g., Michaels v. Loftus, 139 So.3d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (affirming an order of contempt where defense counsel swore at the prosecutor in open court), and that the nearly identical language was found to be subject to a finding of direct criminal contempt in Martinez v. State, 339 So.2d 1133, 1134-35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (affirming a finding of direct criminal contempt where •the defendant stated, “That’s a,bunch of bull shit,” during a court proceeding). We also acknowledge that the power to punish for conteihpt is essential to the administration of justice. See Berman v. State, 751 So.2d 612, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). However, the court’s criminal contempt power should be used cautiously and sparingly, Berman, 751 So.2d at 616,2 and the punishment should fit the crime. In other words, the punishment should take into consideration the contemptuous conduct and all of the surrounding circumstances.

Here, while Twine’s behavior was inappropriate and rude, he immediately régret-ted his- outburst and apologized. And while Twine’s outburst may have warranted punishment, a 180-day jail sentence appears to be excessive based on the record before this Court. However, because we have no authority to reduce or to reverse a lawfully imposed sentence, we affirm. . .

Affirmed.