LESTER WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in adjudicating two separate instances of direct criminal contempt for what constituted a single outburst. The court also reversed the indirect criminal contempt conviction due to the appellant being forced to represent himself.
Appellant was convicted of indirect criminal contempt for violating an injunction and direct criminal contempt for two profane comments made to the co…
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 Violation Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for indirect criminal contempt for violation of an injunction. He also challenges two judgments and sentences for direct criminal contempt for two profane comments directed at the trial court after he had been sentenced for the indirect contempt. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The state concedes the judgment and sentence entered for appellant’s violation of an injunction must be reversed because appellant was required to represent himself against his wishes following the withdrawal of the public defender. Without further discussion, we reverse the judgment of conviction for violation of the injunction, vacate the sentence, and remand.
As for the judgments of direct criminal contempt, we hold the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of two instances of contempt rather than one. In Butler v. State, 330 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 863, 97 S.Ct. 168, 50 L.Ed.2d 142 (1976), the court held that only a single adjudication of contempt is appropriate when multiple contumacious comments can be viewed as a “single outburst.” See also, Duff v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 386 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), B.M. v. State, 523 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), Ricci v. State, 549 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Lundy v. State, 596 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A review of the transcript reveals that appellant’s two statements of profanity, which were virtually identical and separated in time only long enough for the trial court to find appellant guilty of contempt, are properly viewed as a single instance of contempt. Accordingly, we affirm the first of the direct contempt convictions, but reverse the second, and vacate the sentence therefor. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 739 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…9 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved, 346 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1977). However, defendant may not be found guilty of contempt in the second instance where, as here, defendant’s statements can be viewed as a “single outburst.” Williams v. State, 599 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ricci v. State, 549 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Butler v. State, 330 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 863, 97 S.Ct. 168, 50 L.Ed.2d 142 (1976). Accordingly, the trial court must vacate the conviction and…
Authorities Cited
- Lundy v. State, 596 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Dannie Lee Butler v. State, 330 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- B.M. v. State, 523 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Chown v. United States, 429 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1976)
- Feingold v. Feingold, 429 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1976)
- Duff v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 386 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Hall v. State, 549 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Ricci v. State, 549 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)