MICHAEL FISCHER, 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.
Michael Fischer was cited for direct contempt of court after stating he did not understand the trial judge's remarks about proceeding pro se. The appellate court reversed the contempt adjudication, finding that Fischer's statement did not degrade or obstruct the court process and therefore did not constitute contempt.
The alleged contemptuous remarks were not such as to degrade or obstruct the court process, and therefore it was error to adjudicate Fischer in direct contempt. The adjudication and sentence are reversed and set aside.
[1] A direct contempt adjudication requires conduct that degrades or obstructs the court process.
[2] A defendant's dissatisfaction with court-appointed counsel, even if coupled with a desire to proceed pro se, does not inherently constitute direct 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“Based on our review of the record and the applicable standard for a finding of contempt, we find that the alleged contemptuous remarks made by the appellant Michael Fischer were, in fact, not such as to degrade or obstruct the court process.”
Establishes the legal standard for contempt and applies it to conclude Fischer's remarks did not meet that standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFischer appeared for trial on February 27, 1989, and informed the court he was dissatisfied with his court-appointed counsel and wished to proceed pro…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant below, Michael Fischer, was scheduled for trial in the Circuit Court, Case No. 88-41668, on February 27, 1989. At the outset of the proceedings defendant made it known to the court that he was not satisfied with his court appointed counsel and that he would rather proceed pro se. These remarks were predicated upon the alleged fact that there had been little or no communication between Mr. Fischer and his lawyer. Defendant also made it known that he had never seen or met the court appointed co-counsel, Ms. Palma, which Ms. Palma verified. The trial judge then reminded Mr. Fischer that the case had already been postponed once and was now proceeding to trial. Defendant was also told that if he persisted he could, and would, be found in direct contempt of court. Mr. Fischer’s response to the court’s admonition was, “I don’t understand nothing you’re saying.” Upon hearing this remark, the trial judge instructed the defendant to rise, whereafter he was cited for direct contempt of court.
Based on our review of the record and the applicable standard for a finding of contempt, we find that the alleged contemptuous remarks made by the appellant Michael Fischer were, in fact, not such as to degrade or obstruct the court process. Dudley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). See e.g., Clein v. State, 52 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1950); Thomson v. State, 398 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Litus v. McGregor, 381 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Therefore it was error to adjudicate appellant in direct contempt and the adjudication and sentence thereon be and the same is hereby reversed and set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant on the contempt charge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasco Dagama Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…. Thompson v. State, 398 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). However, where a judgment of contempt is not objectively supported by the court transcripts, it is procedurally defective. Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Fischer v. State, 559 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), is factually similar to the instant case. In Fischer, a defendant was held in direct contempt of court for making certain remarks at trial. During proceedings, the defendant informed the court that he was not satisfied with his c…
Authorities Cited
- Clein v. State, 52 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1950)
- Thomson v. State, 398 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Dudley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Litus v. McGREGOR, 381 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)