RODNEY COOK, 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.
Rodney Cook was convicted of direct criminal contempt for uttering profanity during a delayed sentencing hearing for manslaughter. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and sentence, finding the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 by providing insufficient written findings of fact and denying Cook the opportunity to present mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
The conviction and sentence for direct criminal contempt must be reversed because the trial court failed to comply with Rule 3.830 in two respects: (1) the written judgment did not include specific facts supporting the contempt finding, and (2) Cook was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence of excuse or mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
[1] A written judgment of contempt must specifically include a recital of the facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based.
[2] A trial court must inform a defendant of the accusation of direct criminal contempt and afford an opportunity to show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty and sen…
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“Scrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.”
Establishes the constitutional standard for contempt proceedings and the strict procedural requirements trial courts must follow.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCook was convicted of manslaughter and his sentencing hearing was delayed twice. During the third rescheduled sentencing hearing, when asked why the s…
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 Opportunity To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
[*896] PER CURIAM.
Rodney Cook appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence for direct criminal contempt. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830. We reverse.
Cook was convicted of manslaughter. His sentencing hearing was delayed twice. During the third rescheduled sentencing hearing, the defense counsel noted that the defendant appeared upset and asked him what was troubling him. The following exchanges took place:
Defendant: I would like to know why I have not been sentenced yet. I was supposed to be sentenced last Thursday.
Court: September twenty-second.
Prosecutor: Thank you, Judge.
Court: For sentencing.
Defense Counsel: O.k.
Defendant: F-ck ...
Court: I order you to show cause why I should not hold you in direct contempt of court, Mr. Cook. Do you wish to show cause why I should not hold you in direct contempt of court? [Defendant stood mute] I find you in direct criminal contempt of the court. I sentence you to a hundred and eighty days in the Dade County jail. Now, get him out of here now. That sentence to run concurrent to whatever he ends up getting.
The court entered a written judgment of contempt stating as the only basis for the finding of contempt that when the court ordered Cook to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, he said nothing. When the main cause for manslaughter came on for sentencing, Cook apologized to the court, saying that at the time he uttered the profanity he was under some stress from losing his home in then-recent Hurricane Andrew. The court refused to vacate the contempt sentence, and Cook appeals.
According to the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, prior to the adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence the defendant must be informed of the accusation against him and afforded the opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty and sentenced therefor. See Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State ex rel. Garlovsky v. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567, 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The written judgment of guilt of contempt must specifically include a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based. E.g. Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 584 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, the trial court’s written order merely recited that Cook, when asked to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, stood mute. The order was insufficient on its face, as the trial court failed to record in writing clear and specific facts which formed the basis upon which it relied for the adjudication of contempt. Additionally, the trial court did not give Cook the opportunity to present evidence of excuse or mitigating circumstances before it imposed sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.830. Garlovsky, 393 So. 2d at 573.
“Scrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Peters, 626 So. 2d 1048. The purpose of these requirements is to assure the liberty interests of even the most refractory are protected. We suggest that trial judges keep a copy of The Florida Judges’ Manual on the bench, and make reference to it where direct criminal contempts are involved. Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, 1 The Florida Judges’ Manual, Judicial Administration, at 4.1 (2d ed. 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s sentence as well as his conviction for direct criminal contempt and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court. (Emphasis added). Strict compliance with rule 3.830 is necessary to safeguard procedural due process. Berman v. State, 751 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In O’Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an…
-
Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…have emphasized only recently that the provisions of rule 3.830 define the essence of due process in criminal contempt proceedings and must be scrupulously followed. Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); accord, Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We have also explicitly held that the rule’s requirement of a recital of evidentiary facts supporting the finding of contempt must be carried out in all cases. Oates v. State, 619 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA), (contempt adjudication…
-
J.A.H. v. State of Fla. & Dep't of Child. & Families, 20 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…imply found the appellant in contempt “based on his statements, demeanor and behavior” and referenced the CourtSmart audio and video footage as evidence. On its face, this is an insufficient recital of facts to satisfy rule 3.830. See Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding the trial court’s contempt order was insufficient on its face and a violation of rule 3.830 in that it only recited that the appellant, when asked to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, stood mute); Mon…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State ex rel. Joseph T. Garlovsky v. The Honorable E. L. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. State, 584 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)