JOHNIE LEE RADER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Johnie Lee Rader was held in indirect criminal contempt for disobeying a court order in a domestic dispute and sentenced to four months in jail. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction despite concluding that a court reporter should have been present at the contempt hearing, certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether court reporters are mandatory in indirect criminal contempt proceedings.
The court affirmed the contempt conviction under the precedent of Loucks v. State, holding that Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.070(a) and (b) are directory and do not place an affirmative duty on the trial judge when the defendant does not request a court reporter. However, the court expressed discomfort with this rationale and certified a question to the Supreme Court.
[1] A defendant's failure to request a court reporter in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding may constitute a waiver of the right to have the proceeding reported.
[2] Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070(a) mandates that all criminal proceedings shall be reported.
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“Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.070(a) and (b) "are directory in the sense that they do not place an affirmative duty on a trial judge to undertake responsibility which properly belongs to defense counsel."”
Establishes the court's rationale for affirming despite the lack of a court reporter, relying on the principle that the rules are directory rather than mandatory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRader disobeyed a court order entered as an adjunct to a domestic dispute. He was held in indirect criminal contempt and sentenced to four months in j…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.840 cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
For disobeying a court order entered as an adjunct to a domestic dispute, the defendant was held in indirect criminal contempt and sentenced to four months in jail. No court reporter covered the contempt hearing and the defendant claims reversible error for that omission, which deprived him of the transcript necessary to a successful appeal. We affirm.
In Loucks v. State, 471 So. 2d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), this court in a criminal case stated that Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.070(a) and (b) “are directory in the sense that they do not place an affirmative duty on a trial judge to undertake responsibility which properly belongs to defense counsel.” In the case at bar, the record, such as it is, does not reveal, nor does the defendant claim, that he requested a court reporter. This being so, we find Loucks controlling and affirm.
Despite affirmance, we are not too comfortable with the Loucks rationale. Resort to rule 2.070(a) reveals mandatory language directing that all criminal proceed ings shall be reported. It is true that the instant proceeding is not the classic criminal prosecution. On the other hand, the order to show cause sub judice required the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt (emphasis supplied) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Moreover, the defendant was incarcerated as a result.
From all of the above, it would appear to us that the instant proceedings were criminal and the court should have provided a court reporter or an authorized equivalent. Despite this view, we affirm upon the authority of Loucks, which, in effect, holds that the requirement can be waived. In so doing, we concede that having to provide a court reporter in every domestic dispute where the trial court’s criminal contempt powers are sought to be invoked may involve incalculable increased costs on an already overburdened family law system.
Accordingly, believing this matter to be of great public importance, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court:
DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.070(a) MANDATE THE PRESENCE OF A COURT REPORTER OR AN AUTHORIZED EQUIVALENT IN AN INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS ONE?
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blalock v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…orida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.721 provides that the court shall ensure that a record of the entire sentencing proceeding is made and preserved in such a manner that it can be transcribed. Not one of these rules was followed. In Rader v. State, 571 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the Fourth District acknowledged the mandatory language in rule 2.070 and expressed discomfort with one of its prior opinions that held the rule was directory, but nevertheless, foEowed its prior opinion and held that, absent a…
-
Martin v. State, 743 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…was mandatory in a case in which the contemnor was found to be in indirect criminal contempt in a domestic relations case. Blalock recognized that this court had held the language of rule 2.070(b) directory, rather than mandatory, in Rader v. State, 571 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We need not decide whether this cotart should reconsider Rader in light of Blal-ock, because this case is distinguishable from Blalock. First, in Blalock the charges were for indirect criminal contempt, a proceeding in which th…
-
Sandelier v. State, 238 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…endant guilty of direct criminal contempt. The defendant next argues the trial court failed to comply with numerous provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. The State suggests the defendant waived this argument. See Rader v. State, 571 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Here, the defendant did not specifically use the word “waive.” But, after being put on notice of the trial court’s intention to conduct a contempt hearing, the defendant appears to have agreed to proceed with the hearing. Nev…
Authorities Cited
- Loucks v. State, 471 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)