RALPH E. PARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA M. PARIS, 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.
Ralph Paris appealed an indirect criminal contempt order entered against him without compliance with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.840(a)(1). The appellate court reversed the contempt order because the trial judge failed to issue a proper order to show cause predicated on a sworn affidavit before the hearing.
An order of indirect criminal contempt entered without compliance with Rule 3.840(a)(1) must be reversed. A trial judge must issue a formal order to show cause predicated on a sworn affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, verification by a prosecuting attorney based on sworn testimony, or testimony given under oath before the issuing judge before conducting a contempt hearing.
[1] An order of indirect criminal contempt is invalid if not preceded by a court order to show cause.
[2] An order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt must be predicated on a sworn affidavit or testimony of a person with knowledge of the facts.
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“Receipt of a motion for contempt order and notice of hearing rather than the formal pleadings required by Rule 3.840 is insufficient for the purpose of apprising one to be prepared to stand ready to answer a charge of criminal contempt.”
Establishes that informal notice is inadequate; formal compliance with procedural rules is required
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Linda Paris filed two motions for contempt against appellant Ralph Paris. Only one of the two motions was supported by an affidavit, and no o…
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 Sworn Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order of indirect criminal contempt entered without compliance with Rule 3.840(a)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 in that only one of the two motions for contempt filed by appellee was supported by an affidavit and no order to show cause had been issued.
Receipt of a motion for contempt order and notice of hearing rather than the formal pleadings required by Rule 3.840 is insufficient for the purpose of apprising one to be prepared to stand ready to answer a charge of criminal contempt. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 426 (Fla.1977). The order to show cause which the trial judge is directed, by virtue of Rule 3.840(a)(1), to issue prior to a hearing on any charge of indirect criminal contempt must be predicated on a sworn affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, the verification of a prosecuting attorney based on sworn testimony given to him, or testimony given under oath before the issuing judge. Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Thomas A. Edison College, Inc. v. State Board of Independent Colleges and Universities, 411 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Because the aforementioned procedural due process safeguards were not met, we reverse the order of contempt without prejudice to proceed against appellant following the issuance of a court order to show cause predicated upon a sworn affidavit or testimony of a person with knowledge of the facts in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(1).
BOOTH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . Rule 3.840(a)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P.:
Order to Show Cause. The judge, of his own motion or upon affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts, may issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring him to appear before the court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. The order shall specify the time and place of the hearing, with a reasonable time allowed for preparation of the defense after service of the order on the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Deter v. Dinina D. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Thomas A. Edison Coll., Inc. v. State Bd. of Indep. Colleges & Univs., 411 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)