MANUEL JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
An attorney was held in contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled criminal trial where he was retained to represent a defendant. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the contempt judgment because the trial court failed to follow proper contempt procedures and did not provide the attorney a fair opportunity to respond to the contempt charge.
The contempt judgment must be reversed because the trial court did not follow proper contempt procedures and failed to provide the attorney a fair opportunity to respond to the contempt charge. The court notes that depending on circumstances, an attorney's failure to appear may constitute direct criminal contempt or may be explained and shown not to be contemptuous.
[1] A judgment of contempt must be reversed if the procedure employed did not afford the accused a fair opportunity to present evidence of the reasons for their failure to ap…
[2] Attorneys have a direct responsibility to the court to appear when their cases are regularly set and called.
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 intelligence“this appeal from the judgment of contempt must be reversed because the procedure employed did not afford the accused a fair opportunity to present evidence of the reasons for his failure to appear or to present evidence of the existence of any mitigating circumstances”
States the core holding that the contempt conviction must be reversed due to lack of fair procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel W. James, an attorney practicing in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, was retained to represent a defendant in a criminal case. He failed to appe…
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 Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Manuel W. James, is an attorney practicing in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit who has been held in contempt of court for his failure to appear in court at the call of a criminal case in which he had been retained to represent the defendant. We hold that this appeal from the judgment of contempt must be reversed because the procedure employed did not afford the accused a fair opportunity to present evidence of the reasons for his failure to appear or to present evidence of the existence of any mitigating circumstances.
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.830 and 3.840 set out with some specificity the procedures to be followed in the punishment of either direct or indirect contempt of court. Possibly because of clerical errors or the failure to make a proper record, there is no showing on this appeal that the accused had a fair opportunity to respond.
The basis for the contempt judgment was the appellant’s failure to appear at a regularly-set trial court hearing where he had a duty to appear. Depending on the circumstances, such an obstruction of the court’s work may be a direct criminal contempt or, if explained, may be shown not to be contemptuous. See, e. g., Aron v. Huttoe, 258 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). In the present instance, rather than issuing a writ of body attachment, the court entered a rule directing the appellant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt; the rule was served on appellant. For some reason not appearing in the record, the court struck the order and, thereafter, a second order to show cause was issued.
The record does not show that the appellant was served with this order. The appellant did not appear in court at the time specified in the second order and was thereupon adjudged to be in contempt, thus giving rise to this appeal. Because of insufficient support in the record, we hold that the judgment must be reversed. We do so without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cause.
However, we do remind the Bar that every attorney has a direct responsibility to the court to appear when his cases are regularly set and called. See Annotation 97 A.L.R.2d 431 (1964).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ailure to appear in court on the day and time ordered could not be the basis for a direct contempt, but only an indirect contempt, is erroneous. Aron v. Huttoe, 258 So. 2d 272 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), adopted 265 So. 2d 699 (Fla.1972); see James v. State, 385 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Finally, in open court the trial court orally sentenced appellant to twenty-four hours in jail in addition to a fine of $2,000. When reduced to a writing the order recited jail time of forty-eight hours as well as the $2,000 fin…
-
Speer v. State, 742 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…State, 390 So. 2d 448, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (“Appellant’s next assertion that his failure to appear in court on the day and time ordered could not be the basis for a direct contempt, but only an indirect contempt, is erroneous.”); James v. State, 385 So. 2d 1145, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (explaining that an attorney’s failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing “may be a direct criminal contempt or, if explained, may be shown not to be contemptuous”). See also Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27, 29 n. 1 (Fla.…
-
Tjada T. Smith v. State, 144 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…peer v. State, 742 So. 2d 373, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (opining that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt); Porter v. Williams, 392 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (same); James v. State, 385 So. 2d 1145, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (explaining that an attorney’s failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing "may be a direct criminal contempt or, if explained, may be shown not to be contemptuous”). See also Martinez v. State, 799 So. 2d 313, 314-15 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence