JEFFREY ALAN BROWN, 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.
Jeffrey Alan Brown appealed his six-month jail sentence for indirect contempt of court after violating a domestic violence protection injunction by confronting his former wife and her date at her home. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence, rejecting both his procedural challenge to the order to show cause and his substantive defense based on alleged permission to visit the residence.
The order to show cause satisfied procedural requirements because it plainly stated the possible consequences and, by incorporating and attaching the sworn petition, adequately apprised appellant of the specific acts for which he could be punished. Appellant's alleged misunderstanding or permission to visit the residence could not justify the contemptuous acts committed once he arrived at Ms. Brown's residence.
[1] An order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt is sufficient if it incorporates and attaches a sworn petition that provides the essential facts constituting the al…
[2] A sworn petition attached to an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt adequately apprises a defendant of the specific acts for which punishment may be impose…
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“By incorporating and attaching the former wife's sworn petition, the order also was sufficient to apprise appellant of the specific acts for which he could be punished, thereby affording him an adequate opportunity to defend against them.”
Establishes that attaching a sworn petition to an order to show cause satisfies the procedural requirement to specify essential facts of the contempt charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRachael Brown obtained a temporary injunction protecting her from appellant, which prohibited him from committing domestic violence including threaten…
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
CURRY, CHARLES B., Associate Judge.
Jeffrey Alan Brown appeals a six-month jail sentence imposed for indirect contempt of court. We affirm.
Rachael Brown, appellant’s former wife, sought and received a temporary injunction for protection. In that order Brown was restrained from “committing domestic violence,” extending to “threatening, harassing, annoying, or embarrassing” Ms. Brown. Less than two months later Ms. Brown alleged, under oath, that appellant came to her dwelling shouting obscenities and vowing to “beat up” Ms. Brown’s date. A subsequent order to show cause incorporated the allegations made in Ms. Brown’s petition, which was attached to the order, and found that probable cause existed to believe appellant had violated the prior injunction.
Appellant first argues that the order to show cause failed to satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, in that it does not specify the essential facts constituting the alleged act of contempt. Although the order incorporated the former wife’s petition, which did provide a statement of facts, appellant contends it nevertheless “was little more than a notice” which, standing alone, is insufficient to initiate proceedings for indirect criminal contempt. See Paris v. Paris, 427 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Though he concedes no objection was lodged below, noncompliance with the rule has been deemed “fundamental error.” Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We find no deficiency in the procedure utilized by the trial court. In so doing we distinguish the authorities cited by appellant. The notice problem involved in Paris simply does not recur in the present case. The order plainly stated that appellant faced a possible adjudication of criminal contempt and incarceration. By incorporating and attaching the former wife’s sworn petition, the order also was sufficient to apprise appellant of the specific acts for which he could be punished, thereby affording him an adequate opportunity to defend against them. In Bray and in Grant v. State, 464 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the trial courts’ orders similarly made reference to other pleadings, but there is no indication those were properly sworn or that they were physically attached to the orders to show cause. See also Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (unverified pleading insufficient).
Appellant’s second argument also is without merit. At the show cause hearing he attempted to demonstrate that he had permission to visit the former wife’s residence, apparently in connection with child visitation. The trial court curtailed most of this testimony, finding it to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. We agree. The court heard ample evidence that appellant committed the contemptuous acts alleged in the petition and order. Appellant’s alleged misunderstanding of what he could and could not do under the injunction certainly would not justify his actions once he arrived at Ms. Brown’s residence.
Affirmed.
FRANK, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ts in the order itself, this court has recognized that a person’s due process rights will be protected if the order expressly incorporates and attaches the sworn petition to the order in place of setting forth the facts in the order. Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The order in this case failed to incorporate the facts alleged in the amended petition.3 Fail [*703] ure to comply with Rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, w…
-
MIX v. State, 827 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ding that an order to show cause was legally insufficient because it relied on an unsworn motion for the purpose of stating the allegations and the sworn affidavits in the record were not incorporated into the show cause order), with Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding that an order to show cause was sufficient because it incorporated and attached the former wife’s sworn petition). The procedures under rule 3.840 must be strictly followed before a person is found guilty of indirec…
-
Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…by subsection (1) of the rule, but only upon the unsworn motion of the plaintiffs in the underlying civil action. Although there appears to have been no objection below, noncompliance with rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Only an express waiver will suffice to estop the aggrieved party from challenging the adjudication on appeal. Persoff v. Persoff, 589 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Mrs. Reins…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Offord v. State, 427 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Grant v. State, 464 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)