RAFAEL MORALES, SR., GLORIA MORALES, ANA MORENO, MARIA CHAVEZ AND JOSE GARCIA, APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants who were custodians of a criminal defendant released on a custody order were convicted of direct criminal contempt for the defendant's failure to appear in court. The appellate court reversed, finding no evidence that any custodian was responsible for the defendant's non-appearance.
Custodians cannot be held in direct criminal contempt based solely on a defendant's failure to appear when the record contains no finding, and cannot support a finding, that any of the custodians were responsible for the defendant's non-appearance.
[1] A criminal contempt conviction requires a finding that the contemnor acted with willful disregard for the court's authority.
[2] A custody release order must clearly delineate the specific duties and responsibilities of the custodian.
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“No finding was made, nor would the record support a finding that any of the appellants were responsible for the failure of the defendant to appear for trial.”
Establishes the basis for reversal—lack of evidence connecting custodians to defendant's non-appearance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA criminal defendant was released into the custody of the appellants under a court-approved custody release order. The order required the custodians t…
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, custodians of a criminal defendant who had been granted a custody release, seek review of their convictions and sentences imposed for direct criminal contempt of court. The order1 of custody reads as follows:
“CUSTODY RELEASE ORDER This cause coming on to be heard before me, and the Court being advised in the premises, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the DEFENDANT MORALES, RAFAEL 5860 W. 14 CT. (Name) (Address) be and he/she is hereby order released into the custody of: PTS; joint with custodians_ (Name) (Address) (Tel. No.) the said custodian to produce the defendant in Court at such time or times as directed by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant and the said custodian are to notify the Cleric of the Court, (1351 N.W. 12th Street, Miami, Florida, 33125) of any change in address or telephone number; and in the event that the defendant is not present in Court at any proceeding as directed by the Court, then both the said defendant and the said custodian are subject to an Order citing them for Contempt of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this day of MAR 18 1986 A.D., 19_. CIRCUIT JUDGE MARGARITA ESQUIROZ” The appellants failed to produce the defendant and the trial court held them in direct criminal contempt. No finding was made, nor would the record support a finding that any of the appellants were responsible for the failure of the defendant to appear for trial. We reverse upon the reasoning found in Dudley v. State, 2 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), with directions to discharge the appellants.
Reversed with directions.
. Custody release is approved by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(b)(l)(iv). The custody order in the instant case fails to adequately require the custodians to give notice to the proper authorities of the defendant’s violation of the custody order when any such violation may occur. If the custodians had the responsibility to report any violation it may be that their failure to inform could serve as a basis for a contempt finding, if a trial court should find that such a failure to notify assisted the defendant in his absenting himself from his required court appearance.
. We note that this opinion was rendered after the entry of the contempt orders by the trial court, which are under review.