DEMETRIUS ANTWON JONES,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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.
The appellate court affirmed a trial court's order of direct criminal contempt against Demetrius Antwon Jones. Jones was held in contempt for using profanity in open court and attempting to leave during a hearing, which the court found disrupted its business and undermined its authority.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The use of profanity in open court, coupled with an attempt to leave the proceedings, constituted direct criminal contempt because it disrupted the court's business and undermined its authority.
[1] A defendant's use of profanity in open court may constitute direct criminal contempt when the utterance disrupts the trial court's business.
[2] An attempt by a defendant to leave a courtroom without permission during proceedings can support a finding of direct criminal contempt.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We review such orders on an abuse of discretion standard.”
Establishes the standard of review for contempt orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a hearing on his counsel's motion to withdraw, Jones became frustrated when his counsel would not disclose the privileged reason for the withdr…
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.
Appellant Demetrius Antwon Jones appeals an order holding him in direct criminal contempt.
The trial court imposed a 180-day sentence after Jones uttered a profanity during a hearing on his counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing him, and then tried to leave the courtroom without the trial court’s permission.
We affirm because the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Michaels v. Loftus, 139 So. 3d 324, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“We review such orders on an abuse of discretion standard.”).
At the hearing on his counsel’s motion to withdraw, Jones objected to the withdrawal motion in advance of his trial date and grew frustrated when his counsel would not state, in open court, counsel’s reason for filing the motion. The trial judge explained to Jones that the reason was privileged, and Jones’s counsel’s disclosure of the reason could result in the trial judge’s recusal. Apparently dissatisfied with this explanation, Jones said, in a courtroom filled with other criminal defendants and court personnel, “So fuck me basically.” The trial judge asked what Jones had said and Jones repeated these words. The trial judge gave Jones an opportunity to explain himself, which Jones declined to do beyond saying, “[y]our courtroom is unfair.” Jones then attempted to leave the courtroom in the middle of these proceedings without permission. The trial judge found Jones in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830.
A defendant’s use of profanity in open court may constitute a valid ground for direct criminal contempt when the profanity is uttered in the presence of the trial judge and the utterance disrupts the trial court’s business. Twine v. State, 188 So. 3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Davila v. State, 100 So. 3d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Jones’s use of profanity in open court and his attempt to leave the proceedings – in the presence of other criminal defendants and court personnel – disrupted the trial court’s business and, if left unpunished, would have undermined the trial court’s authority. Affirmed.