CHARLES E. HOLDEN AND T. C. GREEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Two witnesses were found guilty of direct criminal contempt for refusing to testify in a stolen property trial. The court imposed six-month jail sentences immediately after their testimony without following mandatory procedural safeguards, leading the appellate court to reverse and remand for a proper contempt hearing.
The trial court's failure to follow the mandatory procedures of Rule 3.830 requires reversal of the contempt judgments and sentences. The rule requires that before adjudication of guilt, the judge must inform the defendant of the accusation, inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty, allow presentation of evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances, and pronounce sentence in open court.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
[2] A criminal contempt conviction requires the trial court to inform the defendant of the accusation and provide an opportunity to show cause why they should not be adjudged…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor.”
This quotation from Rule 3.830 establishes the mandatory procedural requirements for adjudicating contempt, including the requirement to inform the defendant of accusations and allow opportunity to respond before judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen and Holden were called as State's witnesses in a prosecution against a third person for receiving and concealing stolen property. After defense …
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 Opportunity To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
The trial judge found Green and Holden guilty of direct criminal contempt for refusal to testify and sentenced each to. six months in jail. The refusal to testify occurred when Green and Holden were called as State’s witnesses in a four-count prosecution against a third person for receiving and concealing stolen property. Since the defense counsel had no prior opportunity to question Green or Holden, the court allowed counsel to interview them out of the jury’s hearing “in the nature of discovery.” The court assured both witnesses not to be concerned with possible retribution by the defendant.
Pursuant to questioning by defense counsel and the court, Green and Holden each stated he could not recall selling any property to the defendant. Holden stated that he remembered making a statement two years before. After reading a copy of the statement, he stated that he did not remember saying that he sold property to defendant. Green, at first, stated that he did not recall making a statement nor did he’recall selling property to the defendant. After listening to a tape of the prior statement, Green said that he may have made the statement to get out of trouble, but he did not remember to whom he had sold any stolen property.
Immediately after appellants testified the judge found each guilty of contempt and sentenced each to six months in jail.
Appellants contend that the judgments and sentences should be reversed because the judge did not follow the procedures required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830:
A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.
The law in Florida is clear; compliance with the procedural safeguards contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 is mandatory. Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Ray v. State, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Duncan v. State, 349 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Ledlow v. State, 346 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Based on the court’s failure to comply with these procedures, we reverse the judgments and sentences and remand to allow Green and Holden a hearing so as to conform with Rule 3.830.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. State, 482 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…re set out in this rule be followed in order to insure due process to the accused and failure to do so must result in reversal. Ledlow v. State, 346 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Garber v. State, 335 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Holden v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Even technical errors, such as a failure to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt was based, require a reversal. Osborne v. State, 430 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In the present case, a requi…
-
Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…against him, inquire whether he can show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt, and give him an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances. Compliance with these procedural safeguards is mandatory. Holden v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to conduct a hearing in compliance with Rule 3.830. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. DOWNEY, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Gidden v. State, 593 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…o. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). . See White v. Buck, 505 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Wells v. State, 487 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Holden v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Vines v. Vines, 357 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Ray v. State, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1978); Simkovitz v. State, 340 So. 2d 95…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- RAY v. State of Fla. & the Honorable J. Robert Durden, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Ledlow v. State, 346 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Duncan v. State, 349 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)