JAMES ARMSTRONG VIA, 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.
James Armstrong Via appeals his conviction for indirect criminal contempt based on kicking and damaging an elevator emergency telephone door while in custody at a jail. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the conduct did not constitute indirect criminal contempt because it did not violate a court order and caused no obstruction to judicial administration.
The court held that Via's conduct did not constitute indirect criminal contempt because it did not violate a court order and there was no evidence that it obstructed, interrupted, prevented, or embarrassed the administration of justice. While the conduct may have been inappropriate and potentially criminal mischief, it did not meet the legal standard for criminal contempt.
[1] Indirect criminal contempt requires conduct outside the presence of the judge that violates a court order.
[2] Conduct that interferes with or impugns the judicial function, not conduct that personally offends a judge, is the test for criminal contempt.
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“The test in determining whether conduct constitutes criminal contempt is whether the conduct interferes with or impugns the judicial function, not whether it causes a particular judge to feel aggrieved or vexed.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes criminal contempt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVia was sentenced on September 2, 1992, in Collier County Court for an unrelated offense. While being transported to jail by a deputy sheriff, Via kic…
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
BLUE, Judge.
James Armstrong Via appeals an order finding him guilty of indirect criminal contempt. He argues that his conduct did not constitute indirect criminal contempt. We agree and reverse.
On September 2, 1992, Via appeared in Collier County Court and received a jail sentence for an offense unrelated to this appeal. Following sentencing, Via was taken out of the courtroom for return to the Collier County jail. While en route to the jail and in the custody of a deputy sheriff, Via kicked and damaged the door housing an elevator emergency telephone.
For the specific conduct of kicking and damaging the telephone door, an order to show cause was issued charging Via with indirect criminal contempt. Following a bench trial, Via was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days in jail consecutive to the sentence being served, with 60 days suspended, and a placement on supervised probation with the condition that Via pay for the elevator repairs.
The test in determining whether conduct constitutes criminal contempt is whether the conduct interferes with or impugns the judicial function, not whether it causes a particular judge to feel aggrieved or vexed. Vines v. Vines, 357 So. 2d 243, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Direct criminal contempt results from conduct committed in the presence of a judge; indirect criminal contempt concerns conduct that has occurred outside the presence of the judge that violates a court order. See In re S.L.T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Via’s behavior, while inappropriate, was not indirect criminal contempt. His behavior did not violate a court order. There was no testimony that Via’s conduct obstructed, interrupted, prevented, or embarrassed the administration of justice. The state argues that Yia’s behavior is obviously contempt of court as the culmination of a continuous sequence of events that began in the courtroom. This argument must fail because there was no testimony that Via exhibited any misbehavior while in the courtroom, nor was he charged with any courtroom misbehavior. Additionally, even if supported by the evidence, this argument might support a finding of direct contempt, not indirect contempt.
While the evidence might have supported a criminal mischief charge, Via’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt is clearly erroneous. Via’s conduct, as charged in the order to show cause, was not contempt of court. Therefore, we reverse Via’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 752 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…which is facially contemptuous. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Thus, the definition of criminal contempt is not restricted to a violation of an order per se. For example, the Second District, explained in Via v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994): The test in determining whether conduct constitutes criminal contempt is whether the conduct interferes with or impugns the judicial function, not whether it causes a particular judge to feel aggrieved or vexed. Direct criminal…
-
A.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ated to lessen its authority or dignity.” M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So. 2d 683, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “Contempt does not exist just because a judge feels aggrieved or vexed.” McRoy v. State, 31 So. 3d 273, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Via v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(a) controls direct contempt proceedings for juveniles. It provides: [Direct] contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt com…
-
McROY v. State, 31 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…der, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or to lessen the court’s authority or dignity. Richey v. McLeod, 137 Fla. 281, 188 So. 228, 229 (1939). Contempt does not exist just because a judge feels aggrieved or vexed. Via v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Direct criminal contempt is summary punishment for conduct that occurs in the presence of the court. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Direct criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Braisted v. State, 614 So. 2d 63…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Vines v. Doyle Eugene Vines, 357 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)